M/S Prism Thermoformers vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Prism Thermoformers, had its GST registration cancelled on February 25, 2021, effective from December 30, 2020. The revenue did not dispute that the registration was never revived, nor did the petitioner seek its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argued it was not obligated to check the GST portal for e-mode show cause notices for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, which preceded adjudication orders dated April 24, 2024, July 31, 2024, and December 2, 2023. The revenue also did not claim to have issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing these orders.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued through e-mode for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, because its GST registration had been cancelled effective December 30, 2020, and was not subsequently revived. The Court noted that the revenue did not dispute these facts or claim that any physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner prior to the adjudication orders. Therefore, the Court found that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. The Court set aside the adjudication orders dated April 24, 2024, July 31, 2024, and December 2, 2023. The petitioner was directed to treat the writ petition itself as a notice and submit its final reply within four weeks. Following this, 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 through e-mode for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, given that its GST registration was cancelled effective December 30, 2020, and was not revived. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since its registration was cancelled, it was not obliged to check the GST portal for e-mode notices. The revenue did not contend otherwise or claim any physical notice was served. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not present any arguments on this specific point, as recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the adjudication orders passed without issuing physical/offline notice to the petitioner, whose registration was cancelled, violated the principles of natural justice. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner contended that the adjudication orders were passed in violation of natural justice as no physical notice was served after its registration was cancelled. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not present any arguments on this specific point, as recorded in the judgment.