Gajendra Singh Cont. Vs Assistant Commissioner And Another (Uttarakhand High Court)
Summary: The Uttarakhand High Court considered a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 25.04.2024 issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and an adjudication order dated 28.08.2024. The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings and a direction for fresh consideration after being provided an opportunity of hearing.
The petitioner’s case was that his firm’s GST registration had been cancelled on 20.02.2020 and, after such cancellation, he was not expected to continue checking the GST portal. According to the petitioner, subsequent service of notice should therefore have been effected through alternative modes. Reliance was placed upon judgments of the Allahabad High Court, particularly, in M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes (Writ Tax No.1676 of 2024) and M/s Katyal Industries vs. State of U.P. and others (Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:23697-DB).
The principles from those decisions placed before the Court concerned Section 169 of the CGST Act and the manner in which notices may be served. The quoted observations recognised multiple modes of service, including direct tender, registered or speed post or courier, email, making the communication available on the common portal and, where other modes are not practicable, affixation or publication in a newspaper. The Allahabad High Court had observed, in the circumstances considered there, that making a notice available on the common portal was one permissible mode but was not necessarily the exclusive mode, particularly where the taxpayer’s registration had already been cancelled and the petitioner was therefore not expected to monitor the GST portal.
The material placed before the Uttarakhand High Court also referred to Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which requires an opportunity of hearing where a request is received in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated. The petitioner relied upon the principle that failure to provide such an opportunity before an adverse adjudication order would implicate the principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case was covered by the aforesaid Allahabad High Court judgment. The learned counsel for the Revenue did not dispute the submission. The Uttarakhand High Court noted that the facts were not in dispute and held that the present writ petition was squarely covered by the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes and by the Uttarakhand High Court’s own order dated 12.01.2026 in Writ Petition (M/B) No.1065 of 2025, “ M/ s Jaipal Singh vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand & another ”.
In M/s Jaipal Singh, the Uttarakhand High Court had quashed the impugned order and granted the Revenue liberty to issue a fresh notice and thereafter adjudicate the matter in accordance with law, while providing the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act if so desired. Applying the same approach in the present case, the Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated 28.08.2024 was liable to be quashed.
The Court accordingly quashed the adjudication order dated 28.08.2024. It did not finally adjudicate the underlying tax liability on merits. Instead, the petitioner was granted two weeks to file his reply to the show cause notice bearing Reference No. ZD050424015390X dated 25.04.2024. Thereafter, the respondent Department was permitted to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. The Court expressly directed that the petitioner be provided a personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act.
The writ petition was consequently disposed of, and any pending application was also disposed of. Thus, the relief granted was procedural: the existing adjudication order was quashed and the Department was permitted to undertake fresh adjudication after giving the petitioner an opportunity to reply and a personal hearing. The Court did not determine the substantive tax liability under Section 73 in favour of either party.
Cases Discussed
- M/s Ahs Steels Vs Commissioner of State Taxes And Another, Writ Tax No.1676 of 2024 — The Uttarakhand High Court treated the present matter as squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Allahabad High Court concerning service of GST notices where the taxpayer’s registration had already been cancelled and the requirement of providing an effective opportunity of hearing.
- M/s Katyal Industries Vs State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:23697-DB — Referred to by the petitioner in support of the contention concerning the permissible modes of service under Section 169 and the requirement of effective communication where GST registration has been cancelled. No independently verified TaxGuru case page for this exact decision was located.
- M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771 — Referred to in the quoted Allahabad High Court observations concerning compliance with principles of natural justice in GST fiscal adjudications. The Supreme Court decision concerned provisional attachment under GST and was cited in the source material for its observations concerning natural justice.
- M/s Jaipal Singh vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand & another, Writ Petition (M/B) No.1065 of 2025, order dated 12.01.2026 — The Uttarakhand High Court followed its earlier order, under which the impugned order had been quashed with liberty to the Revenue to issue a fresh notice and adjudicate afresh after providing an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4). No independently verified TaxGuru destination for this exact case was located.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 25. 04. 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the impugned adjudication order dated 28.08.2024, and for a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner firm on 20.02.2020, the petitioner was not expected to check the GST portal and the service of notice should have been effected through alternative modes. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the various judgments of the Allahabad High Court, particularly, in M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes (Writ Tax No.1676 of 2024) and M/s Katyal Industries vs. State of U.P. and others (Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:23697-DB), wherein the Allahabad High Court, after considering the decisions of the Apex Court, has observed as follows: –
“25. The twin issues which, therefore, arise for determination before this Court are: (i) whether the service of notices exclusively through the GST portal, in the circumstances of the present case where registration of the Petitioner stood cancelled, can be regarded as valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act; and (ii) whether the impugned order suffers from violation of the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) requiring an opportunity of personal hearing.
26. Section 169 of the CGST Act prescribes multiple m odes for valid service of notice, including (a) direct tender to the assessee, manager, authorized representative or family m ember, (b) registered or speed post or courier; (c) communication through email, (d) making it available on the common portal; and (e) by affixation or publication in a newspaper, if other m odes are not practicable. The legislative intent is clear: while making a notice available on the common portal is one permissible method, it is not the exclusive method, and the Department is duty-bound to ensure effective service in a manner that actually communicates the notice to the assessee.
27. I n the instant case, the Petitioner’s registration stood cancelled since 2018, and therefore, the Petitioner was not enjoined to monitor the GST portal. The insistence by the Department that portal-based service alone sufficed amounts to imposing a duty on a nonregistered person, which the law does not contemplate. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are directly on point.
28. In light of the above discussion, this Court is persuaded to hold that the Department, in the present case, failed to effect valid service of the notices. The statutory requirement of service under Section 169 has not been satisfied.
29. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated. This provisioned bodies the principle of audi alteram partem, the right to be heard before an adverse order is passed. The Supreme Court in Rad h a Krishan Industries v. Stat e of Himachal Pradesh, ( 20 2 1) 6 SCC 7 7 1, while examining the scheme of GST law, underlined that fiscal adjudications must comply strictly with the principles of natural justice, and failure to afford a hearing renders the proceedings vulnerable.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case is covered by the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the said submission.
4. As the facts are not in dispute, therefore, we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/ s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes ( Writ Tax No.16 76 of 2024) and the order passed by us dated 12.01.2026 in Writ Petition (M/ B) No.1065 of 2025, “ M/ s Jaipal Singh vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Ser vices Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand & another ”. The operative part of the order passed in the said case is as follows:-
“Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024, passed by respondent No. 2-Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand is hereby quashed. The Revenue is granted liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and, thereafter, adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of personal hearing in term s of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, if so desired by the petitioner.”
5. Having regard to the same, we, hereby, quash the impugned adj udicat ion order dated 28.08. 2024. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file his reply to the show-cause notice bearing Reference No.ZD050424015390X, dated 25.04.2024 and thereafter, it shall be open to the respondent- Department to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be provided personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act.
6. The petition stands disposed of.
7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
