I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE 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 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 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) communicati