Case Law Details
Arman Traders Vs State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court)
Any Adjudication Notice Issued After Cancellation of Registration May Be Served Through Physically In Terms of The Provisions of Section 169(1)(a)(b) of The U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017
The Allahabad High Court examined whether the adjudication order dated 24.12.2023, arising from a show cause notice dated 28.09.2023, was legally sustainable when the petitioner’s GST registration had already been cancelled on 28.09.2021. After cancellation, the show cause notice was issued only through electronic mode by uploading it on the Common Portal.
The Court noted that, as acknowledged in earlier proceedings, where registration has been cancelled, adjudication proceedings may continue only upon service of physical notice. Once registration is cancelled, the person is disabled from operating on the Common Portal and is no longer obligated to check it. Therefore, any adjudication notice issued after cancellation must be served physically in terms of Section 169(1)(a)(b) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017.
In the present case, no physical notice had been issued or served. The Court held that this amounted to substantial violation of principles of natural justice, as it may have prevented the petitioner from filing objections or a reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner’s statutory right to be heard under Section 75(4) of the Act was emphasized.
Finding a breach of essential principles of natural justice, the Court set aside the impugned adjudication order dated 24.12.2023 and remitted the matter to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
The authority was directed to issue a fresh notice through physical mode within ten days, along with copies of the Relied Upon Documents (RUDs). The petitioner was granted two weeks thereafter to file a written reply through physical mode. The authority was further directed to fix a hearing date with at least 15 days’ advance notice. The petitioner undertook to cooperate and not seek adjournment. The proceedings were directed to be concluded within two months from the date of filing of reply.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, briefly it has to be considered if the adjudication order dated 24.12.2023 arising from show cause notice dated 28.09.2023 suffers from patent illegality resulting in complete denial of opportunity to object or being heard in the adjudication proceedings. Undeniably, the petitioner’s registration stood cancelled by order dated 28.09.2021. Thereafter the show cause notice was first issued to the petitioner through electronic mode, by uploading it on the Common Portal.
2. It is the own case of the respondents, as noted in M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.; 2025:AHC:229995- DB, that in cases where registration may have been cancelled, such persons may be proceeded in adjudication proceedings only against service of physical notice. The circular providing for such measure follows the dictate of common sense. Once the registration is cancelled and the registered persons thus disabled from working on the Common Portal and in any case, are relieved of obligation to check the Common Portal thereafter, it is wholly natural and practical that any adjudication notice issued after cancellation of registration may be served through physically in terms of the provisions of Section 169(1)(a)(b) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017.
3. To the extent, no such physical notice has been issued or served on the petitioner, rules of natural justice are seen to have been substantially violated as may have prevented the petitioner from filing any objection/ reply to suchshow cause notice.
4. In view of that breach of essential principles of natural justice noted, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the present writ petition pending or calling for counter affidavit, at this stage. Primarily, the petitioner’s right to be heard is statutorily protected under Section 75 (4) of the said Act.
5. Accordingly, the impugned adjudication order dated 24.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
6. For that purpose, we further provide the said respondent may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner through physical mode, along with copies of Relied Upon Documents (‘RUDs’ in short) within a period of ten days from today.
7. Subject to such compliance, the petitioner shall have two weeks therefrom to file his written reply through physical mode and thereafter the respondent no.2 may fix appropriate date for hearing in the proceedings with at least 15 days advance notice. Subject to that compliance, the petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings and not seek any adjournment. Thereafter the proceedings may be concluded not later than two months from the date of filing of reply by the petitioner.
8. The present petition is disposed of, accordingly.
Author Bio
