2024 (4) TMI 463 - HC - GST

Service of Notices after cancellation of GST registration - Validity of assessment order and demand of GST - HELD THAT - It does merit acceptance that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive the show cause notices that may have been issued to the petitioner for 2017-18 through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 31.12.2023 passed in pursuance thereto - It is also not the case of the revenue that any physical/offline notice was issued to or served on the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. Thus, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the petition pending or calling counter affidavit at this stage or to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. Since essential requirement of rules of natural justice has remained to be fulfilled, the order dated 31.12.2023 set aside. The petitioner may treat the said order itself to be the notice and submit its final reply thereto within a period of four weeks from today - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the cancellation of registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 and the failure to serve notices to the petitioner through e-mode or physical/offline means before passing the impugned order.

Cancellation of Registration:
The petitioner's registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was canceled on 6.5.2019 w.e.f. 31.1.2019, and it was undisputed that the registration was not revived. The revenue did not claim that the registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought revival. Due to this, the petitioner was not required to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for 2017-18 through e-mode before the adjudication order dated 31.12.2023.

Failure to Serve Notices:
It was highlighted that no physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. Given these facts, the court found that there was no purpose in keeping the petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at that stage. The petitioner was not directed to seek an alternative remedy.

Order of the Court:
Considering the lack of fulfillment of the rules of natural justice, the court set aside the order dated 31.12.2023. The petitioner was instructed to treat the said order as the notice and submit a final reply within four weeks. Upon compliance, a fresh order would be passed after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, preferably within three months from the submission of the reply.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and providing the petitioner with an opportunity to respond effectively to the allegations against them.