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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Medicine Enterprises, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017, cancelled effective from 01.09.2018, with the cancellation order dated 22.01.2019. The revenue did not dispute that the registration was never revived or that the petitioner never sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argued it was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2017-18, which were purportedly sent via e-mode and led to an adjudication order dated 16.12.2023. 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 considered these facts to be peculiar.

Held

The Court held that given the undisputed facts that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled effective 01.09.2018 and was never revived, the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for the period 2017-18 via e-mode. The Court also noted that the revenue did not contend that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner prior to the adjudication order dated 16.12.2023. Finding that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled due to lack of proper notice, the Court set aside the adjudication order. The petitioner was directed to treat the set-aside order as a notice and submit its final reply within four weeks. Subsequently, a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. The ratio decidendi is that a cancelled GST registration absolves the entity of the obligation to check the GST portal for e-notices, and adherence to natural justice requires proper service of notice, either physically or through a demonstrably effective e-mode, which was absent here.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for the period 2017-18 via e-mode, given that its GST registration was cancelled effective 01.09.2018 and had not been revived. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since its registration was cancelled, it was not required to monitor the GST portal for e-mode notices, as it was not an active registered entity. They also contended that no physical or offline notice was served before the impugned order was passed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the cancellation of registration or the non-revival. They also did not claim to have issued any physical/offline notice. Their primary stance, implied by the issuance of the adjudication order, was that notices were sent via e-mode, and the petitioner should have been aware or checked the portal.