Chetan Khandelwal vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Chetan Khandelwal, had his GST registration cancelled effective February 15, 2019, under the UPGST Act, 2017. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. The petitioner was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for FY 2018-19 via e-mode, preceding an adjudication order dated April 27, 2024. The revenue has also not claimed that any physical or offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. The High Court noted these peculiar facts and deemed 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 issued for FY 2018-19 via e-mode, as his GST registration had been cancelled effective February 15, 2019, and there was no contention that it was revived. The Court further found that the adjudication order dated April 27, 2024, passed without any physical or offline notice being served on the petitioner, violated the essential requirements of the rules of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated April 27, 2024. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks, and upon compliance, a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, expeditiously and preferably within three months. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer whose GST registration is cancelled is not bound to check the GST portal for e-notices, and any order passed without proper physical notice in such circumstances violates natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for FY 2018-19 via e-mode, given that his GST registration was cancelled effective February 15, 2019? (Question of law) 2. Whether the adjudication order dated April 27, 2024, passed without issuing physical/offline notice to the petitioner, violates the principles of natural justice? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that with the cancellation of his GST registration, he was not required to monitor the GST portal for e-notices. Furthermore, the absence of any physical or offline notice before the adjudication order rendered the order unsustainable due to a violation of natural justice. Revenue's arguments: The revenue did not dispute the cancellation of the petitioner's registration. They also did not assert that any physical/offline notice was served on the petitioner prior to the impugned order. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the petitioner's obligation to check the portal or the validity of the e-notices.