Shikha Khandelwal vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Up Lucknow And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Shikha Khandelwal, had her Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration under the UPGST Act, 2017, cancelled effective February 11, 2019. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argues she was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2018-19, which preceded an adjudication order dated April 29, 2024. The revenue has also not claimed that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. 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 2018-19, given that her GST registration had been cancelled effective February 11, 2019, and there was no contention from the revenue that the registration was revived or that any physical notice was served. The Court found that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard and receive proper notice, had not been fulfilled. Therefore, the adjudication order dated April 29, 2024, was set aside. The Court directed that the petitioner could treat the set-aside order as a notice and submit her final reply within four weeks. Following this, a fresh order was to be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity for a 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 tax period 2018-19, given the cancellation of her GST registration effective February 11, 2019? (Question of law). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since her GST registration was cancelled, she was not required to monitor the GST portal for any notices, especially as no physical or offline notice was served. The cancellation of registration effectively absolved her of the obligation to check for e-mode notices. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not contend that the petitioner's registration was revived or that she sought revival. They also did not claim that any physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner prior to the adjudication order. The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue regarding the petitioner's obligation to check the portal post-cancellation.