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.193 of 2026 March 23, 2026 M/s Jai Mateshwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. ----Petitioner Versus Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax And Others ----Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.1 to 6 through V.C.

JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.

1. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel states that his office has wrongly received notice on behalf of respondent no.8.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing prayer no.t, which is for direction to the respondents to revive the GST registration of the petitioner company.

4. The present writ petition has been filed assailing separate orders of assessment passed against the petitioner company on different dates u/s 73, 74 and 76 of GST Act as well as the recovery citation dated 15.12.2025 issued on basis of the said orders.

5. The case of the petitioner-company is that it’s Directors met with an accident and thereafter various disputes arose between the Directors and shareholders, as a result of which, the business came to a standstill. The Department, on basis of spot verification, made on 14.07.2023, passed an order u/s 29(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax/Uttarakhand State Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017, cancelling the registration of petitioner- company. Thereafter, the Department issued show-cause notices to the petitioner-company for different periods followed by impugned orders imposing a huge amount of tax, interest and penalty, without any proper notice or information to the petitioner-company.

6. It is submitted that the notices have been purportedly served by uploading the same on the GST portal, whereas after cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner-company, there was no occasion for the company to keep accessing the GST portal and to come to know of the notices. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned orders are in violation of the principle of natural justice. In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on various judgments of 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 under:-

“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 p