Katyal Industries Vs State of UP
Date: February 11, 2024
Subject Matter
Taxpayer is not required to check the GST portal for show cause notices after Registration cancellation
Summary
The petitioner’s registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on May 21, 2019, and there was no effort from the petitioner to revive this registration or any indication that the registration has been revived. Consequently, the petitioner was not required to check the GST portal for show cause notices that may have been issued for the period from April 2018 to March 2019. - The revenue did not serve any physical or offline notice to the petitioner prior to the adjudication order dated June 20, 2023. Given these circumstances, the court found that the principles of natural justice were not observed, leading to the decision to set aside the June 20, 2023 order. The petitioner is allowed to consider this order as the notice and is required to submit a final reply within four weeks. Following this, a new order should be issued after providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing, ideally within three months. The case was thus disposed of in this manner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner’s registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled on 21.5.2019. It is not the case of the revenue that the said registration has ever been revived or that the petitioner ever sought revival of that registration.
2. In view of the above, 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 the period of April, 2018 to March, 2019 through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 20.6.2023 passed in pursuance thereto.
3. 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.
4. In view of peculiar facts noted above, 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.
5. Since essential requirement of rules of natural justice has remained to be fulfilled, we set aside the order dated 20.6.2023. 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. Subject to such compliance by the petitioner, fresh order may be passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months therefrom. Disposed of.