Ayaz Traders Vs Commissioner (Uttarakhand High Court)
The Uttarakhand High Court considered a writ petition challenging the adjudication order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73(9) of the UKGST Act, 2017 and the Appellate Authority’s order dated 12.12.2024 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal as barred by limitation.
The petitioner’s firm had its GST registration cancelled on 12.08.2021 with effect from 31.07.2021. Thereafter, the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2023 followed by the adjudication order. The petitioner submitted that the Show Cause Notice and adjudication order were served by uploading them on the GST portal. Since the registration had already been cancelled, the petitioner contended that there was no occasion to continue checking the GST portal and, consequently, the petitioner could not become aware of the proceedings.
Reliance was placed on the Uttarakhand High Court’s order dated 16.02.2026 in Raj Shekhar Pandey vs. State Tax Officer, which had relied upon decisions of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes and M/s Katyal Industries vs. State of U.P. and others. Those decisions considered whether service exclusively through the GST portal after cancellation of registration constituted valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act and whether the statutory requirement of personal hearing under Section 75(4) had been satisfied.
