M/S Pragati Enterprises vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pragati Enterprises, had its GST registration cancelled on March 7, 2022, with effect from February 7, 2022. 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 show cause notices issued for the period April 2017 to March 2018, which preceded an adjudication order dated December 27, 2023. 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 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 April 2017 to March 2018, as its GST registration had been cancelled on March 7, 2022, effective February 7, 2022, and had not been revived. The Court found that the revenue had not issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the adjudication order dated December 27, 2023. Consequently, the Court concluded that the essential requirements of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. The adjudication order dated December 27, 2023, was set aside. The petitioner was granted four weeks to submit its reply to the show cause notice. 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 April 2017 to March 2018, given that its GST registration was cancelled effective February 7, 2022, and was not subsequently revived? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since its GST registration was cancelled, it was not obliged to check the GST portal for any notices, especially for a period preceding the cancellation, and that no physical notice was served. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order was passed in violation of natural justice principles. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the cancellation of registration or the lack of revival. It also did not claim to have issued any physical notice. The revenue's stance implicitly suggests that notices issued through e-mode on the portal should have been accessible or that the petitioner should have ensured its registration status.