Nitco Coating Agency vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Nitco Coating Agency, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017, cancelled on April 24, 2019, effective from March 31, 2019. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argues 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 24, 2024. The revenue has also not claimed that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. The Court found that the essential requirements of natural justice were not fulfilled.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices for the period 2018-19, given that its GST registration had been cancelled effective March 31, 2019, and was not revived. The Court found that the revenue had not established that any physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the adjudication order dated April 24, 2024, was passed. Consequently, the Court concluded that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. The Court set aside the order dated April 24, 2024, and directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within four weeks. Upon compliance, a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, expeditiously, 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 2018-19, given the cancellation of its GST registration effective March 31, 2019, and the subsequent adjudication order dated April 24, 2024? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the issuance of the adjudication order dated April 24, 2024, without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing or serving physical notice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since its GST registration was cancelled, it was not obliged to monitor the GST portal for electronic notices. Furthermore, no physical notice was served, thus violating natural justice principles. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed without fulfilling the essential requirements of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the cancellation of registration or the lack of revival. It also did not claim that any physical notice was served. The revenue's primary stance, implied by the passing of the order, was that the petitioner should have been aware of or responded to notices, possibly through the portal, despite the registration cancellation.