Interstellar Residency Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Varanasi Sector -10 Varanasi And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Interstellar Residency Private Limited, had its GST registration cancelled effective October 31, 2019, and there is no record of its revival or any application for revival. The revenue does not dispute this. Consequently, the petitioner argues it was not obligated to check the GST portal for e-mode show cause notices for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The revenue also does not claim to have issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the adjudication order dated December 5, 2023. The High 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 the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices for the period July 2017 to March 2018, as its GST registration had been cancelled effective October 31, 2019, and had not been revived. The Court found that the revenue had not issued any physical/offline notice to the petitioner before passing the adjudication order dated December 5, 2023. Since the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice, specifically the opportunity to be heard and receive proper notice, had not been fulfilled, the Court set aside the adjudication order. The petitioner was directed to treat the adjudication order itself as a notice and submit its final reply within four weeks. Following this, a fresh order was to be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, 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 July 2017 to March 2018, given that its GST registration was cancelled effective October 31, 2019, and had not been revived, turning on principles of natural justice and the implications of a cancelled registration under the UPGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since its registration was cancelled and not revived, it was not required to monitor the GST portal for notices, as the cancellation effectively ceased its obligation to receive communications through that mode. The petitioner relied on the principle that notices must be served in a manner that ensures actual receipt or a reasonable opportunity to receive them. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not contend that any physical/offline notice was served on the petitioner prior to the impugned order. Their argument, implied by the issuance of the adjudication order, would be that the petitioner remained responsible for any outstanding liabilities and should have been aware of potential notices, even with a cancelled registration.