[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
23 March vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2027-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.188 of 2026
23 March, 2026
A.S. Traders -----Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick and Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned State Counsel.
2. The following prayers have been made in the
writ petition:
"(a) issue a writ, order or direction, in the
nature of certiorari, quashing the Ex-parte
Assessment Show cause notice (including Form
- DRC-01A (u/s 74(5) of the UKGST Act, 2017)
(Annexure no. 4(colly)), r/w Ex-parte
Assessment order u/s 74(9) dated 03.02.2024
passed by respondent no. 3 for the Assessment
year 2020-21, imposing heavy ex-parte
demands (Annexure no. 5 (colly)); and the
consequent Recovery proceedings being initiated
by respondent no. 4 consequent to the Citation
of Recovery certificate dated 03.02.2024 for AY
2020-21, issued by respondent no. 3
(Annexure No. 6);
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus, remanding the Assessment
proceedings back to respondent no. 3 namely
the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment),
Sector-8, Dehradun for denova assessment
proceedings for the Assessment Year 2020-21,
for passing Assessment order, after proper
2026:UHC:2027-DB
opportunity of hearing, as contemplated u/s
75(4) & (5) of the UKGST Act, 2017;"
3. The petitioner was a sole proprietorship concern
and was engaged in business of all kinds of iron scrap.
4. The case of the petitioner is that during Covid-
19 pandemic the business got adversely affected and,
therefore, he submitted application for surrendering the
registration certificate dated 14.08.2020.
5. A field survey was conducted by an Assessing
Officer and, thereafter, vide communication dated
09.05.2023 petitioner was intimated that his registration
has been cancelled w.e.f. 31.03.2023. After the filing of
the application by the petitioner for cancellation of the
registration certificate for the reason that the petitioner
had stopped the business, the respondents are stated to
have served a show-cause notice dated 14.12.2022 on the
petitioner by uploading the same on GST Portal alleging
that the petitioner had failed to pay the tax for the
business during the financial year 2020-2021.
6. The specific case of the petitioner is that
the petitioner after closing his business and filing
application for cancellation of the registration did not
visit the GST portal and, therefore, could not come
to know of the proceedings, which were consequently
held ex parte. He places reliance on the
2026:UHC:2027-DB
various judgments of the 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 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
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 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
2026:UHC:2027-DB
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 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, we hereby quash
the impugned assessment order dated 23.02.2024 and
the consequent citation of recovery dated 23.02.2024.
9. We further provide that the petitioner shall reply
to the show-cause notice dated 14.12.2022 within two
weeks from today and, thereafter, the respondent-
department may pass a fresh order strictly in accordance
with law. The petitioner shall also be given opportunity of
2026:UHC:2027-DB
personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of
the GST Act.
10. The petition stands disposed of.
11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 23.03.2026
SS
SUKHBANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6
SINGH
380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72
C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2026.03.24 14:17:13 +05'30'
