Kasim Ali vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Sector-13, Ghaziabad

Facts

The petitioner, Kasim Ali, had his GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on August 23, 2018, effective from May 5, 2018. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2018-19 via e-mode, which preceded the adjudication order dated March 22, 2024. The revenue also did not issue any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Given these circumstances, the Court found no purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy.

Held

The Court held that the adjudication order dated March 22, 2024, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled, and the revenue did not contend otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner was not obligated to check the GST portal for e-mode notices. Crucially, the revenue also failed to issue any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The Court reasoned that the essential requirement of natural justice, which mandates affording an opportunity of being heard, had not been fulfilled. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated March 22, 2024. The petitioner was directed to treat the set-aside order as a notice and submit a final reply within four weeks. Upon compliance, a fresh order was to be passed after providing a personal hearing, expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated March 22, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Sector-13, Ghaziabad, is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the issuance of notices to the petitioner whose GST registration was cancelled. (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that since his GST registration was cancelled, he was not required to monitor the GST portal for e-mode notices. Furthermore, no physical or offline notice was served upon him prior to the adjudication order. Therefore, the order was passed in violation of natural justice. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue did not dispute the facts regarding the cancellation of registration or the lack of physical notice. Their contention, if any, regarding the petitioner's obligation to receive notices electronically is not explicitly recorded in the judgment.