2026 (8) TMI 907

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vices Tax Act, 2017 and the impugned adjudication order dated 28.08.2024, and for a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner firm on 20.02.2020, the petitioner was not expected to check the GST portal and the service of notice should have been effected through alternative modes. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the various judgments of the Allahabad High Court, particularly, in M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes (Writ Tax No.1676 of 2024) and M/s Katyal Industries vs. State of U.P. and ot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was not enjoined to monitor the GST portal. The insistence by the Department that portal-based service alone sufficed amounts to imposing a duty on a nonregistered person, which the law does not contemplate. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are directly on point. 28. In light of the above discussion, this Court is persuaded to hold that 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. 29. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated. This provision emb....