Service by portal-only on cancelled GST registration invalid; fresh adjudication required with opportunity of personal hearing.

Where a taxpayer's GST registration had been cancelled, reliance solely on uploading statutory notices to the GST common portal was held not to constitute valid service under Section 169 because the statutory scheme contemplates multiple service modes and a cancelled registrant is not obliged to monitor the portal; service must in practice communicate the notice to the addressee. Separately, adjudication without granting the opportunity of personal hearing breached the audi alteram partem principle as required by Section 75(4). Consequentially the impugned adjudication was quashed and the revenue permitted to issue fresh notice and proceed with valid service and a hearing if requested.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of notices exclusively by uploading on the GST common portal, where the taxpayer's GST registration had been cancelled, amounts to valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act; (ii) Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the statutory requirement of opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.

Issue (i): Whether portal-only service on a person whose registration was cancelled constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.

Analysis: Section 169 prescribes multiple modes of service including direct tender, registered post/courier, email, making notice available on the common portal, and affixation or publication where other modes are not practicable. Making a notice available on the portal is one permissible method but not exclusive. Where registration is cancelled, the person is not obliged to monitor the portal and reliance solely on portal uploading imposes a duty on a non-registered person inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Portal-only service in the circumstances where registration stood cancelled is not valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act; service was not effected in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned adjudication violated Section 75(4) by failing to grant an opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis: Section 75(4) mandates that an opportunity of hearing be granted where a request is received in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated, reflecting the audi alteram partem principle and requirements of natural justice applicable to fiscal adjudications.

Conclusion: The impugned order violated Section 75(4) as the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of personal hearing; a fresh adjudication must include grant of hearing if so desired by the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication is quashed for defective service and failure to afford the statutory opportunity of hearing; the revenue is permitted to issue a fresh notice and proceed in accordance with law, ensuring valid service and compliance with Section 75(4).

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxpayer's GST registration is cancelled, service of statutory notices cannot be effected exclusively by portal upload; effective service must be effected by a mode that actually communicates the notice to the addressee, and adjudication without granting the opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) breaches the audi alteram partem rule.

---