GST assessment order served via common portal upload-s.169(1) valid service upheld; non-service and natural justice challenge dismissed.

The dominant issue was whether an assessment order uploaded on the GST common portal constituted valid service, defeating a plea of non-service and breach of natural justice. Applying s.169(1) CGST Act, the HC held that any one of the prescribed modes of service is sufficient, and availability of the order on the common portal amounted to valid service. The assessee's claim of bona fide belief of no further liability due to cancellation of registration was rejected as untenable, since it remained obliged to verify portal communications. Consequently, the challenge to the assessment on grounds of non-service and violation of natural justice failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The writ petition seeks to prevent the initiation of proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act against the petitioner. The main issue revolves around the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration and the subsequent demand for payment without effective notice.

Cancellation of GST Registration:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the CGST/SGST Acts, had its GST registration cancelled. Despite believing it had no further liability, the petitioner was issued an assessment order demanding payment. The petitioner argued that proper notice was not served, rendering the proceedings leading to the order invalid.

Service of Notice under CGST Act:
Section 169 of the CGST Act outlines various methods for serving notices, including direct delivery, registered post, email communication, and publication in a newspaper. The petitioner contended that as their GST registration was cancelled, they were not liable for the demand. However, the court found that the notice was made available on the common portal, and the petitioner's failure to check the portal did not invalidate the service of the notice.

Judgment:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim of not receiving proper notice was untenable. The court emphasized that the alternative modes of service provided under Sec.169 of the CGST Act were sufficient, and the petitioner's failure to verify the common portal did not negate the validity of the notice. Consequently, the writ petition was deemed meritless and dismissed.

---