I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

12^TH FEBRUARY, 2026 WRI T PETI TI ON ( 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.

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 I ndustries 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 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 Petit