2024 (7) TMI 1386 - HC - GST

Cancellation of petitioner's registration - non-service of SCN - adjudication proceedings was ex-parte - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in M/S CHEMSILK COMMERCE PVT LTD VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER 2024 (4) TMI 463 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where it was held that ' Since essential requirement of rules of natural justice has remained to be fulfilled, we set aside the order dated 31.12.2023. 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.' For reason of exact similarity of facts, the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's registration cancellation and lack of notice receipt
2. Adjudication proceedings being ex-parte
3. Application of rules of natural justice

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's registration was canceled, and they claimed no notice was served, making the adjudication proceedings ex-parte. Another case, M/S Chemsik Commerce Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., had a similar issue where the registration was canceled, and no notice of revival was issued. The court noted that the petitioner was not obligated to check the GST portal for notices and that no physical notice was served before the impugned order. Due to the lack of notice and fulfillment of natural justice rules, the court set aside the order dated 31.12.2023, allowing the petitioner to respond within four weeks and have a fresh order passed after a personal hearing within three months.

2. The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling the rules of natural justice and ensuring that the petitioner had a fair opportunity to respond. The judgment in the previous case influenced the decision in the present writ petition, as both cases shared similar factual circumstances. By setting aside the previous order and providing the petitioner with an opportunity to respond, the court upheld the principles of natural justice and fairness in adjudication proceedings.

3. The court's decision highlighted the significance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in legal proceedings. By acknowledging the petitioner's claim of not receiving a notice and addressing the lack of opportunity for a personal hearing, the court demonstrated a commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice. The disposal of the writ petition on the same terms as the previous case underscored the consistent application of legal principles in similar factual situations, ensuring fairness and equity in the adjudication process.