M/S Zeeshan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Zeeshan Traders, had its GST registration cancelled on March 31, 2021. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. The impugned adjudication order, dated February 24, 2024, was passed for the period of April 2018 to March 2019. The revenue did not argue that any physical or offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner prior to this order. The petitioner was therefore not obligated to visit the GST portal for e-mode show cause notices preceding the adjudication order.

Held

The Court held that the adjudication order dated February 24, 2024, was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was that the petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled on March 31, 2021, and there was no contention from the revenue that this registration was revived or that the petitioner had sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued through e-mode for the period April 2018 to March 2019. The revenue also did not claim that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the essential requirement of natural justice was not fulfilled. The Court set aside the order dated February 24, 2024, and directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within four weeks. 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 adjudication order dated February 24, 2024, passed for the period April 2018 to March 2019, is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the issuance and service of show cause notices, given that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on March 31, 2021? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural requirements under the GST Act). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since its GST registration was cancelled prior to the issuance of the adjudication order, it was not obligated to check the GST portal for e-mode notices. Furthermore, no physical or offline notice was served, thus violating principles of natural justice. Respondent's (State of U.P. and Another) Contention: The revenue did not dispute that the registration was cancelled and not revived. They also did not claim that any physical notice was served. Their argument, implicitly, was that notices were issued through the e-mode on the portal.