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>Writ petition dismissed; statutory appeal under s.107 GST Act is the available remedy despite procedural natural justice lapse</h1> <h3>M/s Gajraj Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Vikram Singh Versus U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance New Delhi And 3 Others</h3> M/s Gajraj Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Vikram Singh Versus U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance New Delhi And 3 Others - 2025:AHC - LKO:48231 - DB ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) for failure to file returns is legally sustainable when the assessee did not receive or respond to a show cause notice issued under Rule 22(1). 2. Whether service of the show cause notice by uploading on the common GST portal, and alternatively by e-mail or WhatsApp, satisfies requirements of service and principles of natural justice, or whether substituted service by affixation was required. 3. Whether alleged procedural infirmity in the mode or manner of uploading the notice (e.g., not uploaded under the 'View Notice' tab) vitiates the cancellation order. 4. Whether the availability of a statutory appeal remedy precludes interference by writ jurisdiction in the facts presented. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of cancellation under Section 29(2)(c) for non-filing of returns Legal framework: Section 29(2)(c) permits cancellation of GST registration where specified defaults (including non-filing of returns) occur; Rule 22(1) prescribes issuance of a show cause notice and opportunity to reply before cancellation. Precedent treatment: The Court noted reliance by the petitioner on an authority addressing principles of natural justice, and referred to a coordinate bench's decision recognizing multiple permissible modes of service under the Act. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that omission to file returns can ground initiation of cancellation proceedings and that a show cause notice had been issued with a fixed personal hearing date. The petitioner conceded non-filing and absence of a reply; the dispute thus concentrates on adequacy of notice/service rather than the substantive ground for cancellation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio: Non-filing of returns constitutes a ground for initiating cancellation proceedings under the statutory scheme; adequacy of notice is a distinct procedural question to be examined. Conclusions: The Court did not set aside the cancellation on the substantive ground of non-filing but proceeded to address procedural and remedial issues; cancellation on the substantive ground was not found per se unsustainable in these facts. Issue 2 - Sufficiency of service by portal upload, e-mail or WhatsApp; role of affixation as substituted service Legal framework: The GST scheme contemplates multiple modes of service, including uploading on the common portal, e-mail, WhatsApp, and, where these modes are not practicable, substituted service by affixation at the last known place of business/residence or on the office notice board. Precedent treatment: The Court followed a coordinate bench's exposition that uploading on the common portal and electronic communication are permissible methods of service under the Act; affixation is to be resorted to only if these modes are not practicable. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the show cause notice had been uploaded on the portal and that the State-respondents also served the notice via WhatsApp and e-mail. There was no pleading or record before the Court showing non-receipt of notices by those electronic modes. Thus, the prescribed modes of service available under the Act were employed, and the special rule permitting affixation as substituted service was not triggered. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio: Service by uploading on the portal and by electronic communication will satisfy the statutory/service requirements where such modes are usable; substituted service by affixation is permissible only when the other prescribed modes are impracticable. Conclusions: The Court treated the use of the portal and electronic communication as constitutionally and statutorily acceptable modes of service in the circumstances, and found no established failure of service that would automatically nullify the cancellation order. Issue 3 - Effect of alleged improper uploading manner (not under 'View Notice' tab) Legal framework: Validity of service depends on compliance with statutory modes and on proof of actual service where contested; technical defects in the manner of uploading raise questions of fairness and the right to be heard under principles of natural justice. Precedent treatment: The petitioner contended a technical irregularity in portal usage; the Court considered that point against the backdrop of available electronic communications and absence of denial of receipt. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the petitioner's claim that the notice was not uploaded under a specific tab but observed absence of evidence that the petitioner did not receive electronic communications. Given the availability and asserted use of alternative electronic modes, the asserted portal-tab irregularity was not shown to have caused prejudice or denial of opportunity to be heard. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio: A mere technical irregularity in the manner of uploading, without evidence of non-receipt or prejudice, will not automatically invalidate statutory proceedings; proof of actual failure of service or denial of opportunity is essential. Conclusions: The Court did not find the asserted portal-tab defect sufficient to vitiate the cancellation order on the record before it. Issue 4 - Availability of statutory appeal and scope for writ interference Legal framework: Where a statutory appellate remedy exists, discretionary writ jurisdiction is ordinarily exercised with restraint, particularly when alternative efficacious remedies are available and the question involves contestable facts or statutory interpretation. Precedent treatment: The Court applied settled constitutional principle that existence of an adequate statutory remedy militates against exercise of writ jurisdiction, as reflected in the authorities relied upon by the parties. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed the availability of an appeal under the statutory provision (Section 107). Given that remedy, and because the issues raised were amenable to determination in the appellate forum, the Court declined to decide the merits and disposed of the writ petition by leaving the petitioner free to pursue the statutory appeal. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio: Presence of an adequate and efficacious statutory appeal will ordinarily preclude interference by writ jurisdiction; the writ court will remit the dispute to the statutory appellate authority when appropriate. Conclusions: The writ petition was dismissed without deciding the substantive merits, with liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy; the Court emphasized the availability of the statutory route as the appropriate forum for relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
