Service of Notice Only on GST Portal Invalid After Cancellation of Registration- Uttarakhand High Court
Date and Year of Judgment
16 February 2026
The Uttarakhand High Court held that service of show cause notice only through the GST portal after cancellation of GST registration cannot be treated as valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
The Court reiterated that statutory modes of service must ensure effective communication of notice to the assessee.
DB Civil Writ Petition number - 3205/2024 date 5th February 2026
Rajasthan High Court
1. Main Issue Involved
Whether service of show cause notice exclusively through the GST portal after cancellation of GST registrationconstitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, and whether such proceedings violate principles of natural justice.
The case examines the validity of portal-based service of notice when the taxpayer is no longer an active registered person.
2. Sections and Rules Discussed
Section 169 CGST Act – Service of notice
Section 75(4) CGST Act – Opportunity of personal hearing
Section 37 CGST Act – Filing of returns
The Court analysed whether the statutory modes of service prescribed in Section 169 were properly followed.
3. Facts of the Case
The petitioner Raj Shekhar Pandey had surrendered his GST registration pursuant to an application dated 29.04.2023.
Subsequently, the department issued a show cause notice dated 16.11.2024, which culminated in an adjudication order dated 13.01.2025.
The notices and proceedings were uploaded only on the GST portal, and no other mode of service was adopted.
The petitioner contended that once the registration had been cancelled, he was not expected to continuously monitor the GST portal, and therefore service through portal alone was invalid.
Aggrieved by the proceedings, the petitioner approached the Uttarakhand High Court.
The dispute arose because the department relied solely on portal-based service of notice even after cancellation of registration.
4. Petitioner’s Submissions
The petitioner submitted that:
After cancellation of GST registration, the petitioner was not required to monitor the GST portal.
Service of notice through the portal alone does not constitute valid service under Section 169.
The department should have used other statutory modes of service such as email or physical service.
The proceedings were therefore in violation of principles of natural justice.
Reliance was placed on decisions of the Allahabad High Court including:
M/s Ahs Steels v. Commissioner of State Taxes
M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P.
The petitioner relied on judicial precedents holding that portal-based service alone may not amount to valid service in certain circumstances.
5. Department’s Submissions
The department relied upon the fact that the notice was made available on the GST portal, which is one of the modes of service recognised under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
The department argued that uploading notice on the portal constitutes valid statutory service.
6. Analysis and Findings of the Court
The Court examined the scope of Section 169 of the CGST Act, which provides multiple methods for service of notices.
The Court observed that the statute contemplates several modes of service, including:
Direct tender
Registered post or courier
Email communication
Making the notice available on the common portal
Affixation or publication in newspaper
However, the Court clarified that portal-based service is only one of the permissible modes and not the exclusive mode of service.
In cases where GST registration has already been cancelled, the taxpayer cannot be expected to regularly monitor the GST portal.
Therefore, relying solely on portal service defeats the purpose of effective communication of notice to the assessee.
The Court further observed that absence of proper service also results in violation of Section 75(4), which mandates opportunity of personal hearing before passing adverse orders.
The Court emphasized that valid service of notice is a fundamental prerequisite for lawful adjudication under GST.
Important Observations of the Court
Portal-Based Service Not Exclusive Mode of Service
The Court observed:
“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.” (Para 26)
Portal Monitoring Cannot Be Expected After Cancellation of Registration
The Court held:
“In the instant case, the Petitioner's registration stood cancelled since 2018, and therefore, the Petitioner was not enjoined to monitor the GST portal.” (Para 27)
Failure to Serve Notice Properly Violates Section 169
The Court further observed:
“The Department, in the present case, failed to effect valid service of the notices. The statutory requirement of service under Section 169 has not been satisfied.” (Para 28)
Opportunity of Hearing Mandatory
The Court reiterated:
“Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated.” (Para 29)
The Court reinforced the principle that GST adjudication must strictly follow procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice.
7. Judgment of the Court
The Uttarakhand High Court held that:
Service of notice solely through the GST portal was not valid in the facts of the case.
The impugned order dated 13.01.2025 was quashed and set aside.
The department was granted liberty to issue fresh notice and conduct adjudication afresh in accordance with law.
The petitioner must be given opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4).
The Court restored the adjudication process but ensured proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing.
8. Similar / Related Judgments
M/s Ahs Steels v. Commissioner of State Taxes – Allahabad High Court
M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. – Allahabad High Court
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 771 – Supreme Court
Courts consistently stress that procedural fairness and proper service of notice are essential in tax adjudication.
9. CA BTA Insights
This judgment is highly relevant in cases where GST notices are uploaded on the portal without actual communication to the taxpayer.
Key Principles Emerging
Portal-based service is not the exclusive mode under Section 169.
After cancellation of registration, the taxpayer cannot be expected to monitor the GST portal continuously.
Failure to properly serve notice vitiates the entire adjudication process.
Opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) is mandatory.
Practical Litigation Use
This judgment can be relied upon in cases involving:
Ex-parte GST orders
Portal-based service disputes
Proceedings initiated after cancellation of GST registration
Taxpayers can challenge such orders on the ground that effective service of notice was never made.
The ruling strengthens the argument that mere uploading of notice on the GST portal does not always amount to valid service under GST law.