GST registration suspension and service via chartered accountant email: petitioner blamed CA but court dismisses petition and denies relief

Challenge to an ex parte order arising from GST registration suspension and alleged non-service of show cause notice due to notices sent to the petitioner's Chartered Accountant. Court reasons that registration suspension and the provided CA email were within the petitioners knowledge, rejects attributing the default solely to the CA without evidence of action against the CA, and declines equitable relief based on statutory procedure. Consequently, the petition seeking quashing of the impugned order is dismissed for lack of merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition seeking quashing of ex-parte orders passed under Section 73 of the DGST Act and revocation of provisional attachment, on the ground that notices were not communicated due to use of the Chartered Accountant's e-mail, should be allowed and a fresh hearing granted (with the petitioner offering to deposit 50% of the demand).

Analysis: The factual matrix shows GST registration suspension and the provision of the Chartered Accountant's e-mail address on the registration portal were within the petitioner's knowledge. The petitioner did not file replies nor attend personal hearings, resulting in ex-parte orders under Section 73 of the DGST Act. The claim that the Chartered Accountant failed to communicate the show cause notices was not supported by satisfactory evidence of any action against the professional or demonstrable default that would justify equitable interference. Reliance on a prior decision involving different facts does not warrant deviation from the statutory procedure here. An offer to deposit 50% of the liability, without adequate justification for non-compliance with procedural requirements and absence of proof of the asserted representative's failure, is insufficient to invoke equitable relief and bypass statutory compliance.

Conclusion: The petition to quash the ex-parte orders, revoke provisional attachments and grant a fresh hearing (even subject to deposit of 50% of the demand) is rejected; the petitions lack merit and are dismissed.

---