Service of notice solely through GST portal is invalid where the taxpayer’s registration stands cancelled.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the service of notices exclusively through the GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act when the assessee’s registration has already been cancelled

The court held

The court quashed the impugned assessment orders and the recovery citation dated December 15, 2025

It also directed

It held that service solely via the portal post-cancellation is insufficient.

The court granted the petitioner two weeks to respond to the original show-cause notices and directed the respondent department to adjudicate the matter afresh, strictly ensuring a personal hearing is provided to the petitioner as per Section 75(4) of the GST Act

01Facts

The petitioner-company’s GST registration was cancelled on July 14, 2023, under Section 29(2) of the GST Act following a business standstill caused by disputes and accidents involving its directors

¶ 5

Subsequently, the Respondent Department issued several show-cause notices (SCNs) and passed assessment orders under Sections 73, 74, and 76 of the GST Act, followed by a recovery citation dated December 15, 2025

¶ 4-5

These notices were served exclusively by uploading them to the GST portal

¶ 6

The petitioner challenged these orders, contending they were unaware of the proceedings because they had no reason to access the portal after their registration was cancelled, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

¶ 5-6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the service of notices exclusively through the GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act when the assessee’s registration has already been cancelled

¶ 6

ii.2. Whether the impugned assessment orders are sustainable in light of the statutory mandate for a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act

¶ 6-7

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 169 of the CGST/SGST Act, which provides multiple modes of service and implies that while portal-based service is permissible, it is not the exclusive method when it fails to ensure effective communication

¶ 6

It further relied on Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates an opportunity for a personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated

¶ 6-7

The court followed the precedent in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which requires strict compliance with natural justice in fiscal adjudications

¶ 6

M/s Ahs Steels v. Commissioner of State Taxes, which held that a person with a cancelled registration is not enjoined to monitor the GST portal

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 29 Section 169 Section 75

UTTARAKHAND GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 Section 29

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that the Department failed to effect valid service because the petitioner was no longer a registered entity at the time the notices were uploaded

¶ 6

Under Section 169, the legislative intent is to ensure the notice actually reaches the assessee; imposing a duty on a non-registered person to monitor the GST portal is legally untenable

¶ 6

Since the notices were not effectively served, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to respond or request a personal hearing.

¶ 6-8

This omission constituted a direct violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and the statutory requirement under Section 75(4), rendering the resulting assessment orders and recovery citations legally vulnerable

¶ 6-8