M/S Vivaan Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the factual issues raised in the present petition were similar to those in Writ Tax No. 809 of 2023, which was decided by the Court on July 31, 2023. In that prior case, the Court had quashed an ex-parte order and directed the respondent authority to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, allowing them to file a reply and granting an opportunity for personal hearing. Following the precedent set in the earlier case, the present petition was also disposed of on similar terms. The impugned ex-parte order dated July 22, 2021, was quashed. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, focusing on the procedural defect of improper notice. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte order passed without proper service of notice on a de-registered entity, especially when the notice was served on an outdated email address, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed, directing fresh notice and an opportunity for hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vivaan Enterprises, had a GST-registered trading unit whose registration was cancelled effective August 14, 2019, on October 22, 2019. At the time of cancellation, no tax liability was outstanding. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated concerning transactions prior to August 14, 2019. Notices were served on the GST portal, which were intimated to the firm's accountant via an email address created while he was employed by the firm. The petitioner contends that since the firm was de-registered, notices should have been served directly on the petitioner, and service on the accountant's old email address is invalid. The impugned order came to the petitioner's notice only in the third week of August 2023. The amount in dispute is Rs. 63,12,126/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the service of notice on the GST portal, intimated to an accountant's email address created during his employment with the de-registered firm, constitutes valid service of notice on the petitioner under the GST law? 2. Whether an ex-parte order passed without proper service of notice on a de-registered entity is sustainable? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that after de-registration, notices must be served directly on the entity. Service via an email address of a former accountant, created before de-registration, is not valid service. They relied on a previous order of the same court in Writ Tax No. 809 of 2023, dated July 31, 2023, which dealt with similar facts regarding improper notice and ex-parte orders. Respondent's arguments: The Standing Counsel for the State-respondents did not dispute the factual similarity of the present petition to the previously decided case and had no objection to the proposition put forth by the petitioner.