TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST Registration Cancellation Upheld: Notice via Common Portal Valid Despite Petitioner's Non-Receipt Claim Under Section 169</h1> <h3>KODUVAYUR CONSTRUCTIONS Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-WORKS CONTRACT, STATE GST DEPARTMENT KERALA, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE (ARREAR RECOVERY)</h3> The HC rejected the petitioner's writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation and revenue recovery proceedings. The court held that notice ... Non-service of SCN - violation of principles of natural justice - Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - petitioner under the bona fide belief that it has no further liability under the CGST/SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- A reading of Clauses (a) to (f) of sub-sec(1) of Section169 of CGST Act clearly shows that any decision, order, summons, notice or communication under the Act and Rules can be served on the assessee through any one of the methods mentioned. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that Ext P1 assessment order was made available on the common portal. The petitioner’s only case is that as its GST registration was cancelled by Ext P2 order, the petitioner was under the impression that it has no liability to the respondents. This contention is untenable in view of the alternative modes of service provided under Sec.169 (1) of the CGST Act. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner to have verified its common portal that is made available as per the provision. The contentions raised in the writ petition that Ext P1 assessment order was not served as per the provisions of the Act is untenable. The writ petition is meritless and is consequentially dismissed. Issues involved:The writ petition seeks to prevent the initiation of proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act against the petitioner. The main issue revolves around the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and the subsequent demand for payment without effective notice.Cancellation of GST Registration:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the CGST/SGST Acts, had its GST registration cancelled. Despite believing it had no further liability, the petitioner was issued an assessment order demanding payment. The petitioner argued that proper notice was not served, rendering the proceedings leading to the order invalid.Service of Notice under CGST Act:Section 169 of the CGST Act outlines various methods for serving notices, including direct delivery, registered post, email communication, and publication in a newspaper. The petitioner contended that as their GST registration was cancelled, they were not liable for the demand. However, the court found that the notice was made available on the common portal, and the petitioner's failure to check the portal did not invalidate the service of the notice.Judgment:The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim of not receiving proper notice was untenable. The court emphasized that the alternative modes of service provided under Sec.169 of the CGST Act were sufficient, and the petitioner's failure to verify the common portal did not negate the validity of the notice. Consequently, the writ petition was deemed meritless and dismissed.
TaxTMI 
