M/S Kohinoor Communication vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kohinoor Communication, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on June 8, 2023, effective from April 30, 2023. The revenue did not dispute that the registration was not revived, nor that the petitioner sought its revival. The petitioner was therefore not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period April 2018 to March 2019, which preceded an adjudication order dated March 11, 2024. The revenue also did not contend that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed.

Held

The Court held that the adjudication order dated March 11, 2024, was unsustainable due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled effective April 30, 2023, and there was no dispute about its non-revival, the petitioner was not obligated to monitor the GST portal for e-mode notices. Furthermore, the revenue did not claim to have issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order. Therefore, the essential requirement of natural justice, namely, providing an opportunity of being heard through proper notice, was not fulfilled. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer whose GST registration has been cancelled and who has not sought its revival cannot be expected to receive notices through the GST portal's e-mode, and a failure to provide physical notice or an opportunity for a hearing renders subsequent adjudication orders void. The Court set aside the order dated March 11, 2024, and directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within four weeks, after which a fresh order was to be passed after affording a personal hearing, expeditiously and preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated March 11, 2024, passed by the respondent authority, is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of proper notice to the petitioner, considering the cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner argued that since its registration was cancelled, it was not obliged to check the GST portal for notices and that no physical notice was served. The revenue did not present any arguments on this point, as recorded in the judgment. The issue hinges on the interpretation of notice requirements under the relevant GST provisions when a registration is cancelled. The court had to determine if the e-mode of communication through the GST portal was a valid method of serving notice to a petitioner whose registration was already cancelled and who was not actively monitoring the portal.