Raj Shekhar Pandey v. State Tax Officer
Facts :
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 16.11.2024 and order dated 13.01.2025 passed under the GST Act. The proceedings were initiated after cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration pursuant to application dated 29.04.2023. The petitioner contended that notices were not properly served as they were only uploaded on the GST portal. Reliance was placed on judgments holding that portal service alone is insufficient when registration stands cancelled.
Court Decision:
The Court held that where GST registration is cancelled, the assessee is not expected to monitor the portal, and service only through the portal does not constitute valid service under Section 169. It found that there was failure to ensure effective service and also emphasized the requirement of personal hearing under Section 75(4). The impugned order was quashed with liberty to the Department to issue fresh notice and adjudicate the matter after granting opportunity of hearing.
Cases Referred:
- M/s Ahs Steels v. Commissioner of State Taxes
- M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P.
- Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- M/s Jaipal Singh v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun
Other Case Law
Amit Manilal Haria & Ors. vs. The Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise & Anr.
Subject: Validity of penalty imposed under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act on company employees for alleged wrongful availment and passing of Input Tax Credit.
Court DecisionThe Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause not...
Read MoreInstakart Services Private Limited vs The Additional Commissioner, Chennai South Commissionerate
Show Cause Notice and adjudication – Clubbing of multiple financial years in a single show cause notice/order under the CGST Act, 2017 – validity of consolidated proceedings for different tax periods.
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged Order-in-Original No.04/2025-GST AD...
Read MoreVishwa Mitter vs. O. P. Poddar and Others,
Competency of a complainant to file a criminal complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with Section 420 IPC, and whether a Magistrate can refuse to take cognizance on the ground that the complainant is not the
The appellant, Vishwa Mitter, was a dealer in beedies and the constituted attorn...
Read More