M/S Jaiswal Oil Rampur Karkhana vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jaiswal Oil Rampur Karkhana, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on March 31, 2022. 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 2017-18, which preceded an adjudication order dated December 20, 2023. 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 noted these peculiar facts, deeming it unnecessary to keep the petition pending or relegate the petitioner to an alternative remedy.

Held

The Court held that given the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration on March 31, 2022, and the absence of any contention from the revenue that the registration was revived or that the petitioner sought revival, the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for the period 2017-18. Furthermore, the revenue did not assert that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before the adjudication order dated December 20, 2023, was passed. The Court found that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. Therefore, the adjudication order dated December 20, 2023, 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, affording an opportunity for a 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 for the period 2017-18, given that its GST registration was cancelled on March 31, 2022, and had not been revived. 2. Whether the adjudication order dated December 20, 2023, passed pursuant to the show cause notices, is valid in the absence of any physical or offline notice being served on the petitioner. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that since its GST registration was cancelled, it was not required to monitor the GST portal for notices. They also contended that no physical notice was served, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not dispute that the registration was cancelled and not revived. They also did not claim that any physical notice was served on the petitioner prior to the impugned order. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue beyond these admissions.