Agra National Transport Company vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Agra National Transport Company, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017, cancelled on November 20, 2020, effective from November 6, 2020. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argues it was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2018-19, preceding 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.

Held

The Court held that given the undisputed cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration effective November 6, 2020, and the absence of any claim by the revenue that the registration was revived or that physical notices were served, the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices for the period 2018-19. The Court found that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled, as the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the adjudication order dated April 29, 2024, was set aside. The petitioner was directed to treat the said order as a notice and submit its reply within four weeks. Following this, a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, expeditiously, 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 2018-19, given the cancellation of its GST registration effective November 6, 2020, and preceding an adjudication order dated April 29, 2024? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural requirements under GST law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since its GST registration was cancelled, it was not required to monitor the GST portal for notices, as it was no longer an active registered entity. The cancellation of registration absolved it of the obligation to check for e-mode notices. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not contend that the registration was revived or that the petitioner sought revival. It also did not claim that any physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the impugned order. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the petitioner's obligation to check the portal.