##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:3973-DB

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY

21st May, 2026

Writ Petition (M/B) No. 401 of 2026

MS Vandana Distributers ------Petitioner

Versus

Commissioner of the State GST and others

-----Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. S.K.Posti, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ashutosh

Posti, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. The present writ petition challenges the order

dated 06.04.2024, passed by the Proper Officer under

Section 73 (9) of the UKGST Act, 2017 and the order

dated 11.07.2025, passed by the Appellate Authority

dismissing the Appeal as barred by limitation.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the

registration of the petitioner-firm was cancelled on

12.09.2023, w.e.f. 31.07.2023. After cancellation of

the registration, respondent no.2 issued a Show Cause

Notice dated 23.12.2023 followed by the impugned

Adjudication order.

1

2026:UHC:3973-DB

3. The submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the Show Cause Notice and the

Adjudication order were sought to be served on the

petitioner by uploading the same on the GST portal.

However, after cancellation of the registration of

petitioner-firm, there was no occasion for the petitioner

to keep checking the GST portal and, therefore, he

could not come to know of the Show Cause Notice and

the Adjudication order.

4. It is submitted that in similar facts and

circumstances, this Court has quashed the Adjudication

order and has permitted the department to proceed

from the stage of Show Cause Notice. Reliance has

been placed on the order of this Court dated

16.02.2026, in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1140 of 2025 ,

Raj Shekhar Pandey vs. State Tax Officer. The said

judgment and order was passed placing reliance on the

law laid down by the Allahabad High Court, in M/ s Ahs

Steels vs. Com m issioner 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

2

2026:UHC:3973-DB

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