Micasa Vs Union of India and 3 others
Date: May 1, 2025
Subject Matter
Taxpayers are not required to keep checking the GST portal for notices after their registration is canceled
Summary
In the case of Micasa Vs Union of India, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a GST payer is not required to keep checking the GST portal for notices concerning the financial year 2018-19 after their registration was canceled on March 31, 2019. The court noted that the GST registration of the petitioner was effectively canceled and had not been revived. The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated April 24, 2024, noting that the revenue authorities did not prove that they had issued any physical or offline notice prior to this order. The court emphasized that the essential principles of natural justice were not adhered to due to the absence of proper notice, which led to the cancellation of the adjudication order. The petitioner was allowed four weeks to respond to the show cause notice, and the authorities were instructed to issue a fresh order, ensuring a personal hearing for the petitioner within three months. This decision underscores the importance of proper communication and adherence to natural justice, particularly concerning a taxpayer's registration status change.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Having heard Sri Mohit Behari Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Dass, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents, it remains undisputed that the petitioner’s registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 was cancelled w.e.f. 31.03.2019. 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 2018-19 through e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated 24.04.2024 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 24.04.2024. The petitioner may submit its reply to the show cause notice 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.