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, effective from February 7, 2022. The revenue did not dispute that the registration was never revived or that the petitioner did not 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 2018 to March 2019, which preceded an adjudication order dated April 22, 2024. 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 2018 to March 2019, as their GST registration had been cancelled 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 April 22, 2024. Consequently, the Court concluded that the essential requirements of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. The adjudication order dated April 22, 2024, was set aside. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit its reply to the show cause notice within four weeks, after which a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of 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 April 2018 to March 2019, given that its GST registration was cancelled effective February 7, 2022, and had not been revived, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the UPGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner contended that since its GST registration was cancelled, it was not obliged to check the GST portal for notices. They argued that the revenue failed to issue any physical or offline notice, thus violating the principles of natural justice. They relied on the fact that the adjudication order was passed without proper notice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the cancellation of registration or the lack of physical notice. Their implicit contention was that notices issued electronically to the portal were sufficient, but this was countered by the petitioner's argument regarding the cancelled registration.