Uttarakhand High Court directed refund of GST deducted on sale of rejected wheat and paddy seeds after noting that the goods were not sold in branded unit containers and GST liability was not disputed.
The issue was whether passing an order without prior hearing notice violates natural justice. The court held that same-day hearing without intimation is invalid and set aside the demand.
The Court held that the controversy was identical to a previously decided case. The petition was accordingly disposed of without fresh examination of merits.
The case addressed whether cancellation for non-filing of returns could be reversed. The court allowed revocation subject to filing returns and payment of tax, interest, and penalty.
The court examined whether confiscation under GST law can be ordered without hearing the affected party. It held that absence of personal hearing violates statutory requirements, making the order invalid.
The Court held that filing NIL returns does not fall within the grounds specified under Section 29(2) of the GST Act. As a result, the cancellation order and show cause notice were declared legally unsustainable.
The court declined to hear the GST dispute as an appeal remedy existed. It held that pre-deposit requirements cannot justify bypassing statutory remedies.
The Court held that service of notice solely through the GST portal is not valid where the taxpayer is not monitoring it. It set aside the ex-parte assessment for lack of proper service.
The Uttarakhand High Court held that service of notice solely through the GST portal is invalid when the taxpayer’s registration has already been cancelled. Authorities must use other modes of service under Section 169.
The court found that the statutory requirement for service of notice was not met when the department relied only on portal-based communication after cancellation of registration.
