M/S Mushkan Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mushkan Enterprises, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled effective from 28.03.2024. The revenue does not dispute that the registration was not revived, nor that the petitioner sought its revival. The petitioner was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2018-2019 via e-mode, as these preceded an adjudication order dated 13.06.2024. The revenue also did not issue any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Given these circumstances, the Court found no purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy.
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated 13.06.2024 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled, and it was not incumbent upon them to check the GST portal for e-mode notices, especially when no physical notice was served. The Court found that the essential requirement of natural justice, which mandates affording an opportunity of hearing, had not been fulfilled. Consequently, the order dated 13.06.2024 was set aside. The petitioner was granted four weeks to submit a reply to the show cause notice. Upon compliance, a fresh order was to be passed after affording a personal hearing, expeditiously and preferably within three months.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 13.06.2024 is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the issuance and service of show cause notices, in light of the petitioner's cancelled GST registration? The petitioner argued that since its registration was cancelled, it was not obligated to check the GST portal for e-mode notices, and no physical notice was served. Therefore, the adjudication order, passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, is bad in law. The respondent-revenue contended that notices were issued through e-mode, implying the petitioner should have been aware. However, the judgment notes it was not the case of the revenue that any physical/offline notice was issued or served.
Sections Cited
UPGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89229-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2513 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Mushkan Enterprises Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishwjit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
Having heard Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner's registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled w.e.f. 28.03.2024. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.
In view of the above, it does merit acceptance that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive the show cause notices that may have been issued to the petitioner for 2018-2019 through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 13.06.2024 passed in pursuance thereto.
It is also not the case of the revenue that any physical/offline notice was issued to or served on the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.
In view of peculiar facts n
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.