Effective service of notices under the GST framework necessitates compliance with statutory methods, particularly ensuring personal hearing rights are respected before adverse orders.

Judgment :

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 23.02.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 for the Assessment year 2021-22, 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 23.02.2024 for AY 2021-22, 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 2021-22, for passing Assessment order, after proper 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 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 11.01.2024 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 2021-2022.

6. The specific case of the petitioner is that he could not come to know of the show-cause notice as well as the proceedings held by respondent no.3 in view of the fact that his GST registration was cancelled w.e.f. 31.03.2023 and, thereafter, there was no occasion on part of the petitioner to keep track of the GST Portal. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the various judgments of the Allahabad High Court, particularly, inM/ s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes (Writ Tax No.1676 of 2024) and M/ s Katyal I ndustries 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 Departmen