Rakesh Kumar And Sons vs. Assistant Commissioner, Sector-2, State Tax, Bulandshahar And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar and Sons, had their GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on December 26, 2022, effective from the same date. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. The impugned adjudication order dated April 28, 2024, was passed for the period April 2018-March 2019. The revenue did not argue that any physical or offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before this order was passed. The Court noted that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal for e-mode notices preceding the adjudication order, given the cancellation of their registration.

Held

The Court held that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. It was undisputed that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on December 26, 2022, and there was no contention that it was revived or that the petitioner sought revival. Consequently, the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued in e-mode for the period April 2018-March 2019, preceding the adjudication order. The revenue also did not claim to have issued any physical/offline notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the adjudication order dated April 28, 2024, was set aside. The Court directed that the petitioner may submit their reply to the show cause notice within four weeks from the date of the order. Upon compliance, a fresh order is to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated April 28, 2024, passed for the period April 2018-March 2019, is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the issuance and service of a show cause notice, given that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled effective December 26, 2022? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since their GST registration was cancelled prior to the passing of the adjudication order, they were not obligated to check the GST portal for any notices issued in e-mode. Furthermore, the revenue did not provide any evidence of physical or offline notice being served on the petitioner. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated. Respondent's contention: The respondent (revenue) did not argue that the petitioner's registration was revived or that they sought revival. They also did not contend that any physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the impugned order. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the validity of the notice procedure in light of the registration cancellation.