Abhay Ranjan Sarkar Security Agency vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) State Tax Division And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Abhay Ranjan Sarkar Security Agency, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on September 1, 2023, effective from July 21, 2023. The revenue did not dispute that the registration was never revived, nor did the petitioner seek its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argued it was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2020-21, which preceded an adjudication order dated February 13, 2025. The revenue also did not claim to have issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The High Court noted that the essential requirements of natural justice were not fulfilled.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices for the period 2020-21, given that its GST registration was cancelled effective July 21, 2023, and this cancellation was not disputed or revived. The Court found that the revenue did not issue any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the adjudication order dated February 13, 2025. Therefore, the essential requirement of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard and receive proper notice, was not fulfilled. The Court set aside the adjudication order dated February 13, 2025. The petitioner was granted four weeks to submit its reply to the show cause notice. Following this, a fresh order was to be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for the period 2020-21, given the cancellation of its GST registration effective July 21, 2023, preceding the adjudication order dated February 13, 2025? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the UPGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that with its GST registration cancelled, it was not required to monitor the GST portal for notices, especially when no physical notice was served. The cancellation of registration fundamentally altered its obligation to receive notices electronically. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the cancellation of registration or the lack of physical notice. Their implicit contention, by not arguing otherwise, was that the petitioner should have been aware of potential notices, even with a cancelled registration, or that the adjudication order was validly passed.