M/S Society Of Critical Care Medicine Kanpur Charter vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Society of Critical Care Medicine Kanpur Charter, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on January 24, 2024, effective from December 6, 2023. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argued it was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2019-20, which preceded an adjudication order dated August 21, 2024. 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 these peculiar facts, deeming it unnecessary to keep the petition pending or relegate the petitioner to an alternative remedy.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices for the period 2019-20, as their GST registration had been cancelled effective December 6, 2023, and this cancellation was not disputed or revived. The Court found that the adjudication order dated August 21, 2024, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because no physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner prior to its passing. The essential requirement of natural justice was not fulfilled. Consequently, the Court set aside the adjudication order dated August 21, 2024. The petitioner was directed to treat the set-aside order as a notice and submit its final reply within four weeks. Upon compliance, a fresh order was to be passed after affording 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 2019-20, given the cancellation of its GST registration effective from December 6, 2023, preceding the adjudication order dated August 21, 2024? (Question of law) 2. Whether the adjudication order dated August 21, 2024, passed without issuing any physical/offline notice to the petitioner, violates the principles of natural justice? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that since its GST registration was cancelled, it was not required to monitor the GST portal for electronic notices. They also contended that no physical notice was served, thus violating natural justice principles. The petitioner relied on the fact that their registration was cancelled prior to the issuance of the notices and the subsequent adjudication order. Respondent's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent (State of U.P. and another) regarding the petitioner's obligation to check the portal or the issuance of notices. The court noted it was not the case of the revenue that the registration was revived or that physical notice was issued.