Jaipal Singh Vs Commissioner (Uttarakhand High Court)
The Uttarakhand High Court heard a writ petition challenging the order dated 16 August 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Dehradun, which confirmed a demand of ₹18,75,970 along with interest of ₹8,28,474 and penalty of ₹95,226 under the CGST/UKGST Acts. The demand related to transactions alleged to have occurred prior to the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, which had been cancelled with effect from 4 November 2019.
The petitioner argued that the show cause notice initiating the proceedings had been served only by uploading it on the GST portal. It was contended that after cancellation of the firm’s GST registration, the petitioner could not be expected to regularly access the portal. Therefore, service of notice solely through the portal was not valid, and the authorities should have used alternative modes of service. Reliance was placed on an earlier judgment dated 16 September 2025 in M/s Nulife Medical Store vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, where the Court held that once registration is cancelled, the assessee cannot be expected to monitor the GST portal, and notices must be served through other permissible methods.
The Court examined the legal position under Section 169 of the CGST Act, which provides multiple modes for service of notices. These include direct delivery to the assessee or authorised representative, service through registered or speed post or courier, communication through email, making the notice available on the common portal, and service by affixation or publication where other methods are not practicable. The Court noted that while making the notice available on the portal is one permissible method, it is not the exclusive mode of service. Authorities are required to ensure that notice is effectively communicated to the assessee.
