Facts of the Case

M/S Chaudhary Auto Agency's GST registration under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 stood cancelled on 03.06.2021, after which the firm carried on no further business. A show cause notice was nonetheless uploaded only on the GST portal, and the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-17, Agra, subsequently passed an order dated 18.04.2024 under Section 73 confirming a demand against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order before the Allahabad High Court, contending that it could not have been expected to monitor a portal linked to a registration that had already been cancelled nearly three years earlier.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a taxpayer whose GST registration stands cancelled is obligated to continue monitoring the GST portal for notices issued thereafter.
  2. Whether service of a Section 73 show cause notice solely by portal upload, without any alternate mode reaching a taxpayer with cancelled registration, satisfies natural justice.
  3. Whether the resultant Section 73 order deserves to be quashed on this ground, with liberty to the Department to issue a fresh notice by proper means.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner submitted that once its GST registration had been cancelled in 2021, it was not obligated to continue checking the GST portal, and that service of any subsequent show cause notice had to be by alternative means directly reaching it.
  • Reliance was placed on the coordinate Bench decision in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:23697-DB), which had accepted this exact principle in an identical fact situation.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State's counsel did not seriously contest the underlying facts, leaving the legal question to be decided on the strength of the coordinate Bench precedent relied upon by the petitioner.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court expressed complete agreement with the principle in M/s Katyal Industries that a taxpayer whose registration is cancelled is not obligated to check the GST portal, and that alternate service becomes necessary in such cases.
  • Finding a violation of the principle of natural justice on account of exclusive portal-based service, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the Act.
  • The Department was left at liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner by alternate means and proceed afresh in accordance with law, disposing of the writ petition on this direction.

Important Clarification

  • This case reaffirms — for the second time within weeks, alongside M/S Shukla Auto Mobiles — that the Allahabad High Court treats portal-only service as insufficient once GST registration has been cancelled.
  • The Department bears the onus of switching to alternate modes of service (registered post, direct communication) once it is aware or ought reasonably to know that a taxpayer's registration stands cancelled.
  • Quashing on this ground restores the matter for a fresh, properly served notice, rather than shielding the taxpayer from the underlying tax liability altogether.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – the provision under which the demand order under challenge was passed.
  • Section 169 of the UPGST Act, 2017 – governs permissible modes of service, central to the finding of improper service.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the assessee — the Section 73 order was quashed for improper service, with liberty to the Department to issue a fresh notice by alternate means.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case No.: Writ Tax No. 3820 of 2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:138356-DB)
Coram: Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.
Date of Order: 12.08.2025

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.