Service of GST notices solely via portal invalid after registration cancellation; alternative modes under Section 169 required. Personal hearing under Section 75(4) mandatory before adverse order.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 13.01.2025, passed under Section 37 of the GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017, including show-cause notice dated 16.11.2024, and for a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh.

2. It is admitted to the Revenue that the impugned proceedings initiated by the issuance of show-cause notice dated 16.11.2024 and culminating into the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 were post the surrender/ cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner, in pursuance of his application dated 29.04.2023.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after cancellation of the registration, the petitioner was not expected to check the GST portal and the service of notice should have been effected through alternative modes. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the 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 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 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 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.”

4. As the facts are not in