M/S Ayaz Traders Distt Haridwar vs. Commissioner Of The S G S T Commissionerate At Dehradun

Held

The Court held that the law laid down in the aforestated judgments would squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. Since the petitioner's GST registration stood cancelled before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice, service of notices solely by uploading them on the GST portal was not considered valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The Court found that the Department failed to effect valid service, thereby violating the statutory requirement. Consequently, the Adjudication Order dated 17.11.2023 and the Appellate Authority's order dated 12.12.2024 were quashed. The Court reserved liberty for the Revenue to proceed from the stage of the Show Cause Notice and directed that if the petitioner seeks a personal hearing, it shall be provided in terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, upholding the principle of audi alteram partem.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ayaz Traders, challenges an order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73(9) of the UKGST Act, 2017, and a subsequent appellate order dated 12.12.2024 that dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled effective 31.07.2021. Following this cancellation, a Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2023 was issued, and subsequently, the impugned adjudication order was passed. The petitioner contends that these notices were only uploaded to the GST portal, and as their registration was cancelled, they had no reason to monitor the portal and thus did not receive the notices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the service of the Show Cause Notice and Adjudication Order exclusively through the GST portal, after the cancellation of the petitioner's registration, constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act? 2. Whether the impugned Adjudication Order suffers from a violation of the principle of natural justice, specifically the right to a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that since their GST registration was cancelled, they were not obligated to monitor the GST portal. Service of notices solely through the portal, without other modes of communication, is not valid service, especially when the assessee is no longer registered. They relied on this Court's order in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1140 of 2025 (Raj Shekhar Pandey vs. State Tax Officer) and 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, which emphasized the need for effective service and adherence to principles of natural justice. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, through the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual assertion that the Show Cause Notice was served upon the petitioner only by uploading it on the GST portal and by no other mode.