2026 (2) TMI 1071 - HC - GST

Service of Notices via GST portal is inadequate after registration cancellation; effective service and personal hearing must precede adjudication.

Portal-only service of notices on the GST common portal is inadequate where the taxpayer's registration has been cancelled; such reliance obliges ... Service of notice through the common GST portal - valid service u/s 169 of the CGST Act - right to personal hearing u/s 75(4) of the CGST Act - principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) - HELD THAT:- It is admitted to the Revenue that the impugned proceedings initiated by the issuance of show-cause notice dated 16.11.2024 and culminating into the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 were post the surrender/ cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner, in pursuance of his application dated 29.04.2023. As the facts are not in dispute, therefore, we are of the opinion that the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes [2024 (10) TMI 1038 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and the order passed in Writ Petition, “M/s Jaipal Singh vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand & another [2026 (2) TMI 995 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT]”. Having regard to the same, we, hereby, quash the impugned order dated 13.01.2025. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file his reply to the show-cause notice bearing Reference No. ZD051124009726N, dated 16.11.2024, within two weeks and thereafter, it shall be open to the respondent- Department to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be provided personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petition stands disposed of. Issues: (i) Whether service of notices solely by making them available on the GST common portal is valid when the petitioner's GST registration stood cancelled; (ii) Whether the impugned order violates the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by not granting an opportunity of personal hearing.Issue (i): Whether portal-only service is valid after cancellation of GST registration.Analysis: Section 169 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes multiple permissible modes of service including direct tender, registered post/courier, email, availability on the common portal and, where other modes are impracticable, affixation or publication. Where the petitioner's registration was cancelled, reliance solely on portal-based service imposes a duty to monitor the portal on a non-registered person and may fail to communicate the notice effectively. Prior authority dealing with identical facts was considered and applied.Conclusion: Portal-only service is not a valid mode of service where the petitioner's registration had been cancelled; service was not effected in accordance with Section 169 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order violated the requirement of Section 75(4) to grant an opportunity of personal hearing.Analysis: Section 75(4) embodies the principle of audi alteram partem and requires that an opportunity of hearing be granted where a request is received in writing or an adverse decision is contemplated. Fiscal adjudications must comply with principles of natural justice and failure to afford a hearing renders proceedings vulnerable. The absence of personal hearing in the circumstances was examined in light of settled principles.Conclusion: The impugned order violates Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by not providing the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.Final Conclusion: The impugned order is quashed; the petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the show-cause notice and the Department may issue a fresh notice and adjudicate afresh, ensuring effective service and providing personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Ratio Decidendi: Where registration has been cancelled, service solely by making notices available on the GST common portal does not satisfy the service requirements of Section 169 and an adjudicatory order affecting rights must be preceded by an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) to comply with audi alteram partem and natural justice.