M/S Sharad Kumar Singh Ent Bhattha vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Held
The Court held that the adjudication order dated 13.08.2025 was vitiated due to improper service of the show-cause notice. The Court reasoned that once a person's registration is cancelled, they may not be obligated to actively monitor the Common Portal, and thus may remain unaware of subsequent proceedings. The Commissioner's Circular dated 07.05.2025, which mandates physical notice service for adjudication proceedings initiated after registration cancellation, was found to be based on sound common sense and binding on subordinate authorities. Confronted with this, the revenue conceded the point. The Court set aside the impugned adjudication order and directed the petitioner to file their final reply to the show-cause notice within two weeks. The petitioner was also given the option to apply for cross-examination or supply of documents along with their reply. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide any such application before fixing a hearing date, provide at least 15 days' advance notice for personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within one month thereafter, concluding proceedings by 31.12.2026.
Facts
The petitioner, M/S Sharad Kumar Singh Ent Bhattha, is challenging an adjudication order dated 13.08.2025, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017. The petitioner's registration was cancelled on 23.05.2018. A show-cause notice was subsequently issued electronically through the Common Portal on 29.05.2024, nearly six years after the registration cancellation. Consequently, the petitioner remained unaware of the adjudication proceedings and proceeded ex parte. The petitioner only gained knowledge of the adjudication order when recovery proceedings were initiated. A Circular dated 07.05.2025 from the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., mandated physical notice service for adjudication proceedings initiated after registration cancellation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 13.08.2025, passed under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017, is vitiated due to improper service of the show-cause notice, given that the petitioner's registration was cancelled prior to its issuance? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since their GST registration was cancelled on 23.05.2018, they were not obligated to monitor the Common Portal. The show-cause notice issued electronically on 29.05.2024, almost six years later, was therefore not effectively served, leading to an ex parte adjudication order of which they only became aware through recovery proceedings. They relied on the Commissioner's Circular dated 07.05.2025, which mandates physical notice service in such circumstances. Revenue's contention: The learned Standing Counsel conceded that in light of the Commissioner's Circular dated 07.05.2025, there was no dispute with the petitioner's proposition regarding the improper service.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4143 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
Challenge has been raised to the adjudication order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017. 3. Short ground pressed is that the registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 23.05.2018 whereas the show-cause notice was issued only through the Common Portal i.e. through electronic mode on 29.05.2024, almost six years after cancellation of the registration. For that reason, the petitioner was not aware of the adjudication proceedings. It has thus remained ex parte.
Only upon recovery being pursued against the petitioner as a consequence of ex parte adjudication order dated 13.08.2025, the petitioner acquired knowledge of the same. It may be noted that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. vide its Circular dated 07.05.2025 issued binding instructions to its subordinate authorities to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aryan Mishra, Gaurav Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.