2025(07)LCX0094

Latheesh Chovvattapadinhare Kuthirummal

Versus

Central Board Of Indirect Taxes

WP(C) NO. 16114 OF 2025 decided on 01-07-2025

2025:KER:47763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TUESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947

WP(C) NO. 16114 OF 2025

PETITIONER/S:

LATHEESH CHOVVATTAPADINHARE KUTHIRUMMAL
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. LAKSHMANAN, LAKSHMANA NIVAS, PADOLI, PAYYANNUR,
KANNUR, KERALA -, PIN - 670307

BY ADV SHRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL

RESPONDENTS:

1 CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS
NO. 252-C, CBIC, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN., PIN - 110001

2 THE COMMISIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, KOCHI
OFFICE OF THE CENTRAL GST, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE, IS PRESS
ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682018

3 THE COMMISIOENR OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, KERALA
TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002

4 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, TAX PAYER SERVICE
KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION ANNEX,
GROUND FLOOR, KANNUR, PIN - 670002

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT
TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, KANNUR SOUTH, KANNUR -I
RANGE, SGST DEPT.,CIVIL STATION ANNEX, GROUND FLOOR,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002

6 GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK
WORLDMARK 1, AEROCITY, INDIRA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT, NEW DELHI, REPRESETED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, PIN - 110037

OTHER PRESENT:

        SHRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR, SC, SHRI.ARUN AJAY SANKAR, G.P

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a registered person under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the cancellation of his registration.

2. According to the petitioner, he is an independent professional engaged in branding works and art projects. He had obtained registration under the CGST Act. However, as the petitioner failed to submit returns, for more than six months, notice was issued to him as evident from Ext.P3 on 05.02.2024, requiring the petitioner to furnish the returns. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the officer concerned on 04.03.2025. According to him, the petitioner did not receive the notice and therefore, he could not appear before the officer concerned. Thus ultimately, the said notice resulted in Ext.P4 order dated 14.3.2024, by which the registration of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner was not aware of the same, as the order was not sent to the petitioner, in the address provided in the details of the registration. Now the statutory period for filing the appeal is also over and this writ petition is filed in such circumstances seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To call for records leading to Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

(ii) To declare that Section 169 (d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act to the extent it applies to cases of show case for cancellation of registration is ultra vires Constitution of India and is in violation of principles of natural justice.

(iii) To dispense with filing of English translation of Exhibits in vernacular language

(iv) Such other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant.

3. I have heard Sri. Ahamed Fazil.E.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 3 to 5 and Sri.V.Girishkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents.

4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as Ext.P3 notice and Ext.P4 order were not sent to the address of the petitioner by post, he was not aware of the issuance of the same. Even according to the petitioner, Exts.P3 and P4 were only uploaded in the web-portal, as he was not regularly carrying on the business he was not frequently accessing the portal to verify the notices issued to him. Therefore, he was not aware of Exts.P3 and P4.

5. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, as per Section 169 of the CGST Act, several modes of serving notice and the orders are contemplated. One of the means to service notice is by uploading the same in the portal. Since such a method is adopted as a acceptable mode of issuance of notices, as per the Statute, I am of the view that, compliance of the same would be sufficient notice for the purpose proceeding under the Act. The fact that notices or orders were not served to the petitioner physically by sending through post, cannot be a reason, to interfere with such notices and consequential orders, as the same would go against the specific stipulations contained in the Statute.

In such circumstances, I am of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted as the notices and orders impugned in this writ petition were served in the manner as contemplated under Section 69 (d) of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any scope for interfering the impugned order for granting the reliefs.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-             
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE