Facts of the Case

M/s Shaorya Constructions, a proprietorship registered under the U.P. GST Act, had its registration cancelled by order dated 28.09.2023 on the ground of no business activity, pursuant to a notice dated 08.08.2023 of which the petitioner claimed no knowledge. The petitioner's subsequent application for revocation of cancellation was met with a further notice dated 01.06.2024, which also went unanswered — though the petitioner accepted this notice had been uploaded on the portal, a recognised mode of service under Section 169. This resulted in an order dated 22.06.2024 rejecting the revocation application, which the petitioner challenged before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner should be given one final opportunity to respond to the revocation notice dated 01.06.2024, given the sequence of missed notices.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner sought one more opportunity to respond to the notice dated 01.06.2024, given that he had already had knowledge of it (it being annexed to the petition) even though he claimed to have missed it earlier online.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No specific counter-submission is recorded from the opposite party beyond the fact that service by portal upload under Section 169 is a valid mode, which the petitioner did not dispute.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court accepted that uploading a notice on the portal under Section 169 is a valid mode of service, but nonetheless, for the limited reason that one opportunity should be extended, quashed the order rejecting revocation.
  • The petitioner was directed to respond to the notice dated 01.06.2024 within fifteen days; if he does so, the response would be considered and a fresh decision taken on the revocation application, but if he fails to respond within that period, the revocation application shall stand dismissed without further proceedings.
  • The Court clarified that since the notice was already annexed to the petition, no fresh notice was required, and any facility needed to submit the response — online or offline — must be made available by the department.

Important Clarification

  • Uploading a notice on the GST common portal under Section 169 is accepted as valid service, and a taxpayer's claimed lack of awareness does not, by itself, entitle them to a fresh notice — only, in appropriate cases, a final opportunity to respond to the notice already served.
  • Where such a final opportunity is granted, courts attach a hard deadline and an automatic-dismissal consequence for non-compliance, rather than leaving the matter open-ended.

Sections Involved

  • Section 29, CGST Act, 2017 – governs cancellation of registration (for no business activity) and revocation of such cancellation.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 – prescribes valid modes of service of notices, including portal upload, central to this dispute.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was disposed of in favour of the assessee to a limited extent — the rejection order was quashed and one final chance given to respond — but the outcome remains conditional on the petitioner actually filing that response in time.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. Case No.: Writ Tax No. 657 of 2025. Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:43935-DB. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Roy and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jaspreet Singh. Date of Order: 30th July, 2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.