Winstrol Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner (Uttarakhand High Court)
Summary: The Uttarakhand High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.12.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for Financial Year 2017-18. By the impugned order, tax liability of ₹161,09,556.00, interest of ₹167,84,620.08 and penalty of ₹16,29,623.60 had been imposed upon Winstrol Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner stated that the proceedings related to transactions undertaken before cancellation of its GST registration with effect from 01.01.2019. The principal grievance was that the show-cause notice was served by uploading it on the GST portal, without service through any other mode. According to the petitioner, after cancellation of its registration, it could not reasonably be expected to continue accessing and monitoring the GST portal and the notice ought to have been served through an alternative mode.
In support of this contention, the petitioner relied upon the Uttarakhand High Court’s judgment dated 16.09.2025 in M/s Nulife Medical Store vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate, Dehradun & another, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 701 of 2025. In that judgment, after considering Section 169 of the CGST Act and judicial precedents, the Court held that service through the common portal is one permissible mode of service but is not the exclusive mode, particularly where the assessee’s GST registration has already been cancelled.
The Court reproduced the relevant reasoning in M/s Nulife Medical Store. Section 169 of the CGST Act prescribes multiple modes of service, including direct tender, registered or speed post or courier, communication through email, making the communication available on the common portal and, where other modes are not practicable, affixation or publication. The Court observed that the statutory scheme requires effective service and that merely making a notice available on the common portal does not make that method exclusive.
The Court further noted the reasoning that, once registration stood cancelled, the petitioner was not enjoined to monitor the GST portal. Requiring a non-registered person to continue monitoring the portal would impose a duty not contemplated by law. On that basis, the Court in M/s Nulife Medical Store had held that the Department failed to effect valid service where notices were served exclusively through the portal.
The judgment also referred to Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, which mandates an opportunity of hearing where a written request is received or where an adverse decision is contemplated. The Court noted that this statutory requirement embodies the principle of audi alteram partem. In this context, the judgment referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771, concerning compliance with principles of natural justice under the GST framework.
The petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court 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 Full Text records these decisions as part of the reasoning considered in M/s Nulife Medical Store on the issue of service after cancellation of GST registration.
Before the Uttarakhand High Court, learned counsel for the Revenue did not dispute that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner firm was presumably served by uploading it on the GST portal and not by any other mode. Consequently, the Court held that the law laid down in the judgment dated 16.09.2025 in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 701 of 2025 squarely applied to the present case.
Accordingly, the Uttarakhand High Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sector-2, State Tax, Kashipur, Uttarakhand. The Revenue was granted liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner and thereafter adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. The Court further directed that the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, if so desired by the petitioner.
The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, and any pending application was also disposed of. The decision therefore set aside the impugned GST demand order on the issue of service and procedural fairness, while leaving it open to the Revenue to commence the matter afresh through a fresh notice and adjudicate it in accordance with law.
The statutory and procedural context of GST registration cancellation is also addressed in TaxGuru’s coverage of GST registration cancellation and revocation. The issue of service of notices through alternative modes after cancellation has also been specifically discussed in TaxGuru’s coverage of service of notices by alternative means after GST registration cancellation.
Cases Discussed
- M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes, Writ Tax No. 1676 of 2024 — The decision was considered on the issue of whether a taxpayer whose GST registration had been cancelled can be treated as validly served merely because a notice was uploaded on the GST portal, with the Full Text recording the principle that alternative service is required in the circumstances.
- M/s Katyal Industries vs. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. 2024: AHC:23697-DB — The decision was considered regarding service of GST notices after cancellation of registration and the proposition that a cancelled taxpayer cannot be expected to continue monitoring the GST portal in the same manner as a registered person.
- Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2021) 6 SCC 771 — The Supreme Court decision was referred to in the Full Text in connection with the requirement that fiscal adjudications comply with principles of natural justice and that failure to afford the requisite hearing renders proceedings vulnerable.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“a. issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the Impugned Order (Annexure No. 1); and the Impugned Show Cause Notice (Annexure No. 2); as the same has been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice.
b. issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to re-decide the matter after providing a sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners by serving notice by registered post or by speed post;
c. issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 3 & Respondent No. 4 to de-freeze the bank accounts of the Petitioner as the Petitioner is unable to run its business smoothly;
d. grant such further and other reliefs or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts of the present case.”
2. By the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure No.1) passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the financial year 2017-18, the tax liability of 161,09,556.00, interest 167,84,620.08 and penalty 16,29,623.60 was imposed upon the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order was passed in respect of the transaction stated to have been done before the cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner firm w.e.f. 01.01.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after cancellation of the registration, the notice for the proceedings should have been served on the petitioner-firm by other modes and not only by uploading it on the portal, otherwise, it would not be a valid service. He further submits that after cancellation of the registration of the firm, the firm was not expected to keep accessing the portal and in support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment dated 16.09.2025 in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 701 of 2025 titled as ‘M/s Nulife Medical Store vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate, Dehradun & another’, wherein it has been held that once the registration has been cancelled, the assessee cannot be expected to check the GST portal and service must be effected through alternative mode.
5. The relevant observations, made in the said judgment on the said aspect after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Allahabad High Court 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) and other decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, are 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 modes for valid service of notice, including (a) direct tender to the assessee, manager, authorized representative or family member, (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 modes 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. In 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 provision embodies the principle of audi alteram partem, the right to be heard before an adverse order is passed. The Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771, 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.”
6. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner firm was presumably served by uploading same on GST portal and not by any other mode. Consequently, the law laid down in the judgment dated 16.09.2025 passed in WPMB No. 701 of 2025 would squarely apply to the facts of the instant case as well.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by respondent no.2 Deputy Commissioner, Sector-2, State Tax, Kashipur, 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 terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, if so desired by the petitioner.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
