M/S Kanha Food Products vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kanha Food Products, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017, cancelled effective from April 10, 2023, with the cancellation order dated May 20, 2023. The revenue has not contended that the registration was ever 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 2018-19, which preceded an adjudication order dated April 23, 2024. 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 noted these peculiar facts.

Held

The Court held that given the undisputed cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration effective April 10, 2023, the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for the period 2018-19, which preceded the adjudication order dated April 23, 2024. The Court also found that the revenue had not issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Consequently, the Court concluded that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. The adjudication order dated April 23, 2024, was set aside. The petitioner was granted four weeks to submit a reply to the show cause notice, after which a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of 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 issued for the period 2018-19, given the cancellation of its GST registration effective from April 10, 2023, preceding the adjudication order dated April 23, 2024? (Question of law) 2. Whether the adjudication order dated April 23, 2024, passed without issuing any physical/offline notice to the petitioner, violates the principles of natural justice? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that since its GST registration was cancelled, it was not obliged to check the GST portal for any notices. Furthermore, the absence of any physical or offline notice before the adjudication order violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the peculiar facts warranted setting aside the adjudication order and that relegating them to an alternative remedy would serve no useful purpose. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not dispute the cancellation of the petitioner's registration or the non-issuance of physical notices. Their primary stance, implied by the court's findings, was that notices might have been issued electronically.