[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
March 23 vs Commissioner on 23 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2023-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (M/B) No.193 of 2026
March 23, 2026
M/s Jai Mateshwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. ----Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax
And Others ----Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.1 to 6 through
V.C.
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
1. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel states that his
office has wrongly received notice on behalf of respondent
no.8.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that he is not pressing prayer no.t, which is for
direction to the respondents to revive the GST registration
of the petitioner company.
4. The present writ petition has been filed assailing
separate orders of assessment passed against the
2026:UHC:2023-DB
petitioner company on different dates u/s 73, 74 and 76 of
GST Act as well as the recovery citation dated 15.12.2025
issued on basis of the said orders.
5. The case of the petitioner-company is that it's
Directors met with an accident and thereafter various
disputes arose between the Directors and shareholders, as
a result of which, the business came to a standstill. The
Department, on basis of spot verification, made on
14.07.2023, passed an order u/s 29(2) of Central Goods
and Services Tax/Uttarakhand State Goods and Services
Tax, Act, 2017, cancelling the registration of petitioner-
company. Thereafter, the Department issued show-cause
notices to the petitioner-company for different periods
followed by impugned orders imposing a huge amount of
tax, interest and penalty, without any proper notice or
information to the petitioner-company.
6. It is submitted that the notices have been
purportedly served by uploading the same on the GST
portal, whereas after cancellation of GST registration of the
petitioner-company, there was no occasion for the company
to keep accessing the GST portal and to come to know of
the notices. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned
orders are in violation of the principle of natural justice. In
2026:UHC:2023-DB
support of the submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on various judgments of
Allahabad High court, particularly, 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),
wherein the Allahabad High Court, after considering the
decisions of the Apex Court, has observed as under:-
"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 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 nonregistered
person, which the law does not contemplate. The decisions
2026:UHC:2023-DB
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."
7. As the facts are not in dispute, therefore, we are
of the opinion that the instant writ petition is squarely
covered by the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of
the Allahabad High Court in M/s Ahs Steels vs.
Commissioner of State Taxes (Writ Tax No.1676 of
2024) and the order passed by us dated 12.01.2026 in
Writ Petition (M/B) No.1065 of 2025, "M/s Jaipal Singh
vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax
Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand &
another". The operative part of the order passed in the
said case is as follows:-
"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
2026:UHC:2023-DB
Revenue is granted liberty to issue a fresh notice to the
petitioner and, thereafter, adjudicate the matter in accordance
with law. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be granted
an opportunity of personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of
the GST Act, if so desired by the petitioner."
8. Having regard to the same, impugned orders
dated 28.02.2024, 24.04.2024, 20.08.2024, 25.11.2024,
04.02.2025, 05.02.2025, 24.06.2025, 12.08.2025,
20.08.2025, 24.11.2025 and the recovery citation dated
15.12.2025 are hereby quashed. The petition is disposed of
by providing two weeks' time to the petitioner company to
respond to show-cause notices and thereafter it shall be
open to the respondent-department to pass fresh orders,
strictly in accordance with law. Petitioner-company shall be
provided personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the
GST Act.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 23.03.2026
Rajni
RAJINI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db484
48ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17
GUSAIN
d01342, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4
DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F53061
6A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN
Date: 2026.03.24 10:12:20 +05'30'
