M/S Shreya Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shreya Enterprises, had its GST registration cancelled on 28.03.2022, effective from the same date. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argues it was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2020-2021, which preceded an adjudication order dated 11.02.2025. The revenue has also not claimed that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. 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 adjudication order dated 11.02.2025 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was based on the undisputed fact that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 28.03.2022, and it was not revived thereafter. Therefore, the petitioner was not obligated to check the GST portal for any e-mode notices issued for the period 2020-2021. Furthermore, the revenue did not establish that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order. The ratio decidendi is that a party whose registration is cancelled and not revived cannot be expected to receive notices electronically through a portal for which they are no longer registered, and the absence of physical notice renders subsequent adjudication orders unsustainable. The Court set aside the order dated 11.02.2025 and directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within four weeks, after which a fresh order is to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated 11.02.2025 is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the issuance and service of show cause notices, given the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration prior to the issuance of such notices. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that since its GST registration was cancelled effective 28.03.2022, it was not obligated to monitor the GST portal for any e-mode notices issued for the period 2020-2021. They further contend that no physical or offline notice was served upon them before the adjudication order was passed, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue has not contended that the petitioner's registration was revived or that the petitioner sought revival. They have also not claimed that any physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the impugned order.