Raj Shekhar Pandey Vs State Tax Officer (Uttarakhand High Court)
The writ petition was filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.01.2025 passed under Section 37 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with the show-cause notice dated 16.11.2024. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent to reconsider the case afresh.
It was admitted by the Revenue that the proceedings initiated through the show-cause notice dated 16.11.2024 and culminating in the order dated 13.01.2025 were issued after the petitioner had surrendered or cancelled his GST registration pursuant to his application dated 29.04.2023.
The petitioner argued that after cancellation of GST registration, service of notice should have been made through alternative modes rather than exclusively through the GST portal. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on judgments of the Allahabad High Court, including decisions in M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes and M/s Katyal Industries vs. State of U.P., where the court examined the validity of portal-based service of notices.
The cited judgments explained that Section 169 of the CGST Act prescribes several permissible modes of service of notice, including direct tender to the assessee or authorized representative, service through registered or speed post or courier, communication through email, making the notice available on the common portal, and by affixation or publication in a newspaper when other methods are not practicable. The court noted that making a notice available on the GST portal is only one of the permissible methods and cannot be treated as the exclusive mode of service. Where registration has been cancelled, the person is not required to monitor the GST portal, and insisting on portal-based service alone would impose a duty on a non-registered person that the law does not contemplate.
