M/S Jaipal Singh vs Commissioner
2026 Latest Caselaw 930 UK

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 930 UK
Judgement Date : 12 February, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

M/S Jaipal Singh vs Commissioner on 12 February, 2026

                                                                2026:UHC:862-DB


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
                           AND
          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
                             12TH FEBRUARY, 2026
          WRIT PETITION (MB) No. 1065 OF 2025

M/s Jaipal Singh                                                 .....Petitioner
                                    Versus

Commissioner,    State  Goods     and   Services    Tax
Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and another.
                                         ...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner          :   Sri Tarun Pande, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents         :   Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder
                                        for the State of Uttarakhand.



JUDGMENT :

(Per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1. Heard Sri Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of

Uttarakhand.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order

dated 16.08.2024 passed by respondent No. 2-Assistant

Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun,

Uttarakhand, whereby he has confirmed the demand of Rs.

18,75,970/-, interest Rs. 8,28,474/- and penalty Rs. 95,226/-

towards CGST/UKGST. The order was passed in respect of liability

incurred in respect of transactions said to have been done before

the cancellation of GST Registration of the petitioner-firm with

effect from 04.11.2019 vide order reference No.

ZA0511190023342.

2026:UHC:862-DB

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after

cancellation of the registration, the notice for the proceedings

should have been served on the petitioner-firm by other modes

and not only by uploading it on the portal, otherwise, it would not

be a valid service. He further submits that after cancellation of the

registration of the firm, the firm was not expected to keep

accessing the portal and in support of his contentions, learned

counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment dated

16.09.2025 in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 701 of 2025 titled as 'M/s

Nulife Medical Store vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Service

Tax, Commissionerate, Dehradun & another', wherein it has been

held that once the registration has been cancelled, the assessee

cannot be expected to check the GST portal and service must be

effected through alternative mode.

4. The relevant observations, made in the said judgment

on the said aspect after taking into consideration the law laid down

by the Allahabad High Court in M/s Ahs Steels vs.

Commissioner of State Taxes (Writ Tax No. 1676 of 2024)

and M/s Katyal Industries vs. State of U.P. and others

(Neutral Citation No. 2024: AHC:23697-DB) and other

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, are as follows:-

"25. The twin issues which, therefore, arise for determination before this Court are: (i) whether the service of notices exclusively through the GST portal, in the circumstances of the present case where registration of the Petitioner stood cancelled, can be regarded as valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act; and (ii) whether the impugned order suffers from violation of

2026:UHC:862-DB

the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) requiring an opportunity of personal hearing.

26. Section 169 of the CGST Act prescribes multiple modes for valid service of notice, including (a) direct tender to the assessee, manager, authorized representative or family member, (b) registered or speed post or courier; (c) communication through email,

(d) making it available on the common portal; and (e) by affixation or publication in a newspaper, if other modes are not practicable. The legislative intent is clear:

while making a notice available on the common portal is one permissible method, it is not the exclusive method, and the Department is duty-bound to ensure effective service in a manner that actually communicates the notice to the assessee.

27. In the instant case, the Petitioner's registration stood cancelled since 2018, and therefore, the Petitioner was not enjoined to monitor the GST portal. The insistence by the Department that portal-based service alone sufficed amounts to imposing a duty on a non-

registered person, which the law does not contemplate. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are directly on point.

28. In light of the above discussion, this Court is persuaded to hold that the Department, in the present case, failed to effect valid service of the notices. The statutory requirement of service under Section 169 has not been satisfied.

29. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated. This provision embodies the principle of audi alteram partem, the right to be heard before an adverse order is passed. The Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771, while examining the scheme of GST law, underlined that fiscal adjudications must comply strictly with the principles of natural justice, and failure to afford a hearing renders the proceedings vulnerable."

5. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that

Show Cause Notice dated 16.08.2024 was presumably served only

by uploading the same on the GST portal and not by any other

2026:UHC:862-DB

mode. Consequently, the law laid down in the judgment dated

16.09.2025 passed in WPMB No. 701 of 2025 would squarely apply

to the facts of the instant case as well.

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024,

passed by respondent No. 2-Assistant Commissioner, State Tax,

Sector-1, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand is hereby quashed.

The Revenue is granted liberty to issue a fresh notice to the

petitioner and, thereafter, adjudicate the matter in accordance with