Opening Summary
In Raj Shekhar Pandey v. State Tax Officer, Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1140 of 2025, decided on 16-02-2026, the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court quashed adjudication proceedings initiated after cancellation of GST registration, holding that service of notice exclusively through the GST portal is not valid once registration stands cancelled. The Court ruled that such service violates Section 169 and the principles of natural justice, particularly the mandate under Section 75(4) requiring an opportunity of hearing.
Case Background
The petitioner was a registered person under the GST regime whose registration was surrendered and cancelled pursuant to an application dated 29.04.2023. Following cancellation, the petitioner ceased to operate as a registered taxable person.
Despite such cancellation, the Department issued a show-cause notice dated 16.11.2024 and subsequently passed an adjudication order dated 13.01.2025 under Section 37 of the GST Act. The notice and order were uploaded only on the GST common portal.
The Dispute
The dispute centered on the validity of service of notice and continuation of proceedings after cancellation of GST registration.
The petitioner contended that once registration stood cancelled, he was not legally obligated to monitor the GST portal, and therefore, service of notice solely through the portal was not valid compliance under Section 169. It was further argued that the impugned order was passed without granting a personal hearing as required under Section 75(4).
The Proper Officer proceeded ex parte and passed an adverse adjudication order dated 13.01.2025.
Procedural History & Court Rulings
Appellant Challenged the Order before Uttarakhand High Court in writ proceedings.
The High Court held that:
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 was quashed. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply to the show-cause notice within two weeks, and the Department was permitted to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4).
The principal ground for interference was invalid service of notice and violation of principles of natural justice.
Conclusion
The Uttarakhand High Court held that GST proceedings initiated after cancellation of registration cannot be sustained where notice is served solely through the GST portal. The judgment reinforces that statutory compliance under Section 169 must result in effective communication of notice and that Section 75(4) safeguards are mandatory. The impugned order was therefore rightly quashed with liberty for fresh adjudication.
GST Proceedings Post-Cancellation Cannot Be Sustained Where Notice Is Served Solely Through GST Portal – Violation of Section 169 and Natural Justice Opening Summary In
GST Recovery: Karnataka High Court Holds Common Directorship Insufficient to Justify Lifting Corporate Veil for Tax Dues In the case of Ramms India Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court of India, in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [S.L.P.(C) Nos. 1979, 2297, 2778, 1977 of 2019, decided on 21.01.2026], has held that a notification issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 becomes legally enforceable only from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
