Ms Vandana Distributers vs. Commissioner Of The State GST

Held

The Court held that the law laid down in the cited judgments, including the order of this Court in Raj Shekhar Pandey and the decisions of the Allahabad High Court, would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The Court found that the petitioner's GST registration stood cancelled before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. Consequently, the service of notices solely by uploading them on the GST portal, without any other mode of communication, was not considered valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, as the petitioner was not under an obligation to monitor the portal. The Court also noted that Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates an opportunity of hearing, embodying the principle of audi alteram partem. The adjudication order and the appellate order were therefore quashed. The Revenue was granted liberty to proceed from the stage of the Show Cause Notice, and the petitioner was assured of a personal hearing if requested, in terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act.

Facts

The petitioner, MS Vandana Distributers, challenges an adjudication order dated 06.04.2024, passed by the Proper Officer under Section 73(9) of the UKGST Act, 2017, and an appellate order dated 11.07.2025 that dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 12.09.2023, effective from 31.07.2023. Following this cancellation, a Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2023 was issued, followed by the impugned adjudication order. The petitioner contends that these notices were served solely by uploading them to the GST portal. As their registration was cancelled, they were not obligated to monitor the portal and thus did not receive actual notice of the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the service of the Show Cause Notice and Adjudication Order exclusively through the GST portal, when the petitioner's registration stood cancelled, constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act? 2. Whether the impugned adjudication order suffers from a violation of the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, requiring an opportunity of personal hearing? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that after the cancellation of their registration, they had no obligation to check the GST portal. Therefore, service of notices solely through the portal was not effective and did not constitute valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. 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 held that portal-based service alone is insufficient when registration is cancelled and the assessee is not obliged to monitor the portal. They also implicitly argued that failure to provide a hearing renders the order vulnerable. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue, through the learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual position that the Show Cause Notice was served upon the petitioner only by uploading it on the GST portal and by no other mode.