Facts of the Case

A batch of writ petitions involving common questions of fact and law was clubbed together and decided by a common judgment. For brevity and convenience, the High Court considered and discussed the facts of WPMB No. 9 of 2026.

The petitioner sought quashing of:

  • Assessment Orders dated 12.08.2024 and 17.10.2025;
  • Order dated 26.12.2024;
  • Show Cause Notices dated 21.05.2024, 18.01.2025, and 25.10.2024;
  • Recovery Notice/Bank Attachment Order in Form GST DRC-13 dated 06.08.2025.

The petitioner alleged that the impugned assessment orders suffered from:

  • double taxation; and
  • violation of principles of natural justice.

The petitioner also sought a direction requiring the respondents to:

  • lift the attachment over the petitioner’s bank account; and
  • conduct a de novo consolidated assessment for Financial Year 2019-20 after providing a fair opportunity of personal hearing and eliminating the alleged double taxation.

The principal procedural grievance pressed before the Court was that the assessment orders and Show Cause Notices had not been served upon the petitioner through any of the modes prescribed under Section 169 of the Uttarakhand GST Act and had merely been uploaded on the GST portal.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising in the batch of writ petitions were:

  1. Whether mere uploading of assessment orders and Show Cause Notices on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service under Section 169 of the Uttarakhand GST Act.
  2. Whether, after cancellation of GST registration, service must be effected through any of the alternative modes prescribed under Section 169.
  3. Whether assessment orders and notices allegedly not served in accordance with Section 169 could be sustained.
  4. Whether the impugned proceedings suffered from violation of principles of natural justice.
  5. Whether the assessment proceedings involved alleged double taxation.
  6. Whether the Recovery Notice/Bank Attachment Order in Form GST DRC-13 dated 06.08.2025 was liable to be quashed.
  7. Whether the attachment over the petitioner’s bank account was liable to be lifted.
  8. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a de novo consolidated assessment for FY 2019-20 after fair opportunity of personal hearing.
  9. Whether the batch of writ petitions should be disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment dated 12.02.2026 rendered in WPMB No. 1065 of 2025.
  10. Whether the Competent Authority should retain liberty to recommence proceedings from the stage of Show Cause Notice under Sections 63, 73 and 74 of the Uttarakhand GST Act.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assessment order as well as the Show Cause Notice had not been served upon the petitioner by any of the modes prescribed under Section 169 of the Uttarakhand GST Act.

The petitioner specifically argued that:

  • the assessment orders and Show Cause Notices were merely uploaded on the GST portal;
  • mere uploading on the GST portal was insufficient service;
  • a Coordinate Bench of the High Court had already considered the issue in WPMB No. 1065 of 2025;
  • in that earlier case, the Coordinate Bench had taken the view that after cancellation of GST registration, service must be effected through any of the alternative modes provided under Section 169 of the Uttarakhand GST Act;
  • mere uploading of notices on the GST portal after cancellation of GST registration would not be sufficient; and
  • the present writ petitions could therefore be decided in terms of the judgment dated 12.02.2026 in WPMB No. 1065 of 2025.

The reliefs claimed in the writ petition also reflected the petitioner’s case that the impugned assessment orders suffered from double taxation and violation of natural justice.

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned State Counsel submitted that if the writ petitions were to be decided in terms of the judgment rendered in WPMB No. 1065 of 2025, the Competent Authority should be permitted to recommence or continue the proceedings from the stage of the Show Cause Notice.

The State specifically contended that:

  • liberty should be granted to the Competent Authority to proceed from the Show Cause Notice stage; and
  • the Show Cause Notices had been validly issued to the petitioners under Sections 63, 73 and 74 of the Uttarakhand GST Act.

Thus, while responding to the petitioner’s reliance on the earlier Coordinate Bench judgment, the State sought protection of the Department’s right to continue adjudication from the Show Cause Notice stage.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court observed that common questions of fact and law arose in the connected writ petitions and therefore clubbed them together for disposal by a common judgment.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the judgment dated 12.02.2026 rendered in WPMB No. 1065 of 2025.

At the same time, the Court expressly protected the authority’s right to continue the statutory proceedings.

The operative direction was:

The Competent Authority shall be at liberty to proceed from the stage of Show Cause Notice.

Accordingly:

  • the writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment dated 12.02.2026 in WPMB No. 1065 of 2025; and
  • the Competent Authority retained liberty to proceed from the Show Cause Notice stage.

Important Clarification

1. Mere GST Portal Upload After Cancellation of Registration

The petitioner relied on the principle attributed in the present judgment to WPMB No. 1065 of 2025 that, after cancellation of GST registration, service must be effected by one of the alternative modes available under Section 169 of the Uttarakhand GST Act and mere uploading of notices on the GST portal would not be sufficient.

The present batch was disposed of in terms of that earlier judgment.

2. Proceedings Were Not Terminated Permanently

The judgment should not be understood to mean that the GST Department was permanently barred from continuing proceedings.

The High Court expressly held that:

the Competent Authority would be at liberty to proceed from the stage of Show Cause Notice.

This is a significant operative clarification.

3. Sections 63, 73 and 74 Remained Relevant

The State specifically submitted that the Show Cause Notices had been validly issued under Sections 63, 73 and 74 of the Uttarakhand GST Act.

The Court preserved liberty to proceed from the Show Cause Notice stage rather than foreclosing the underlying adjudication.

4. Double Taxation and Natural Justice Were Part of the Relief Challenge

The petitioner had sought quashing of the assessment orders on the grounds that they suffered from:

  • double taxation; and
  • violation of natural justice.

However, the concise final order disposed of the petitions in terms of WPMB No. 1065 of 2025 and granted liberty to proceed from the Show Cause Notice stage.

Therefore, it would be inaccurate to state that the High Court rendered a detailed independent adjudication on the merits of the alleged double taxation issue in this judgment.

5. De Novo Consolidated Assessment Was Sought

The petitioner specifically sought a direction for a de novo consolidated assessment for FY 2019-20 after:

  • fair opportunity of personal hearing; and
  • elimination of alleged double taxation.

However, the operative order specifically states that the Competent Authority is at liberty to proceed from the Show Cause Notice stage.

Sections Involved

·         Section 169 of the Uttarakhand GST Act – Service of Notice, Order and Communication

·         Section 63 of the Uttarakhand GST Act

·         Section 73 of the Uttarakhand GST Act

·         Section 74 of the Uttarakhand GST Act

·         Form GST DRC-13

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783497821_1470compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.