M/S Zucciini vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Zucciini, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017, cancelled on December 9, 2021, effective from July 1, 2017. The revenue has not contested that the registration was never 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 14, 2024. The revenue 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 the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices for the period 2019-20, as its GST registration had been cancelled effective July 1, 2017, and had not been revived. The Court found that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled because no physical or offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the adjudication order dated August 14, 2024, was passed. The Court reasoned that in view of the peculiar facts, keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, the Court set aside the order dated August 14, 2024. The petitioner was granted four weeks to file a reply to the show cause notice, after which a fresh order was to be passed, affording an opportunity for a personal hearing, expeditiously and preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices for the period 2019-20, given that its GST registration was cancelled effective July 1, 2017, and was never revived. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since its registration was cancelled, it was not required to monitor the GST portal for notices. The cancellation effectively ceased its obligation to receive electronic communications through the portal. The petitioner relied on the principle that a party whose registration is cancelled cannot be expected to receive notices electronically through a portal for which they are no longer registered. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not contend that the petitioner was obligated to check the portal. It also did not claim to have issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner prior to the adjudication order. The revenue's position, as understood from the judgment, was that no physical notice was issued.