Case Law Details
Chemsilk Commerce Pvt Ltd Vs State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court)
The case of Chemsilk Commerce Pvt Ltd Vs State of U.P. and Another, adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court, revolves around the cancellation of the petitioner’s registration under the UPGST Act, 2017. Central to the judgment is the issue of whether the petitioner was obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued electronically.
The High Court examined the timeline of events, establishing that the petitioner’s registration had been canceled with no subsequent revival. Crucially, it was underscored that there was no obligation for the petitioner to monitor the GST portal for notices, especially considering the absence of any physical or offline communication from the revenue department.
This lack of communication raises concerns regarding the adherence to principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized the failure to fulfill this essential requirement, leading to the setting aside of the adjudication order dated 31.12.2023.
In setting aside the order, the Court directed the petitioner to treat the order itself as notice and submit a final reply within four weeks. Furthermore, the Court instructed the revenue department to conduct a fresh hearing, ensuring the petitioner’s right to a personal hearing and expeditious resolution of the matter.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Having heard Shri Shubham Agrawal, 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 6.5.2019 w.e.f. 31.1.2019. 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 2017-18 through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 31.12.2023 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 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. 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.
6. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Author Bio
