M/S Maa Construction vs. State Of Uttar Pradeh And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Construction, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on 09.12.2020, effective from 26.11.2020. The revenue did not dispute that the registration was never revived or that the petitioner did not seek revival. The petitioner argued that it was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2018-19, as these notices preceded the cancellation order. The revenue did not contend that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. The High Court noted that the essential requirement of natural justice had not been fulfilled.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for the period 2018-19, as these notices preceded the adjudication order dated 09.12.2020, and the petitioner's registration had been cancelled. The Court found that the essential requirement of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard and to receive proper notice, had not been fulfilled. Consequently, the adjudication order dated 09.12.2020 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to treat the order itself as a notice and submit a final reply within four weeks. Upon compliance, a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for the period 2018-19, given that its GST registration was cancelled prior to the issuance of the adjudication order dated 09.12.2020? The petitioner contended that since its registration was cancelled, it was not required to check the GST portal for notices issued via e-mode, especially as no physical notice was served. The revenue did not present arguments on this issue. 2. Whether the adjudication order dated 09.12.2020, passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and without proper notice, violates the principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of natural justice as no proper notice was served and no opportunity for hearing was granted. The revenue did not present arguments on this issue.