Facts of the Case

M/S Radha Industries, through its partner Shri Atul Agarwal, challenged the final order passed under Section 74(9) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, on the sole ground that service of the show-cause notice was not in accordance with Section 169. It was not disputed that the notice had been uploaded on the common GST portal — a permissible mode under Section 169(1)(d) — but the petitioner's case was that its employee, who held the login password, had left the job, and the petitioner therefore could not access the portal or learn of the notice until its bank account was attached in another matter.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the phrase "if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable" in Section 169(1)(f) can be invoked where the assessee, not the Department, was unable to access the mode of service already validly used (the common portal).

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Since the employee holding the portal password had left the petitioner's employment, the petitioner could not access the portal, and so the words "if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable" in clause (f) of Section 169(1) should come to its rescue, requiring an alternative mode of service (such as affixation) to have been used.
  • Reliance was placed on Madras High Court rulings in Tvl. Sri Mathuru Eswarar Traders v. The Deputy State Tax Officer-I and Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority Under Shop and Establishment Act.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The notice had been properly uploaded on the common portal, which is a valid mode of service under Section 169(1)(d), and the petitioner's difficulty in accessing its own account did not affect the validity of that service.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held it was not impressed by the petitioner's argument: the words "if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable" in clause (f) of Section 169(1) refer to the modes of service being impracticable on the part of the Department issuing the notice, not to a scenario where the assessee itself cannot access a mode that was validly and practically used.
  • Since it was undisputed that the notice was uploaded on the common portal — a mode expressly recognised under clause (d) — clause (f) had "no play or application" on these facts; the petitioner's counsel was found to have "misread and misunderstood" the provision.
  • The Madras High Court decisions relied upon were distinguished as inapplicable to the facts here.
  • The writ petition was dismissed, though without prejudice to the petitioner's right to file an appeal against the impugned order, as far as permissible in law.

Important Clarification

  • Section 169(1)(f) of the CGST/UPGST Act — permitting alternative modes such as affixation "if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable" — is triggered only where the modes of service listed in the preceding clauses are impracticable for the Department to use; it does not come to an assessee's rescue merely because the assessee itself could not access the common portal (e.g., because the employee holding its login credentials had left).
  • Uploading a notice on the common GST portal under Section 169(1)(d) constitutes valid and complete service, irrespective of whether the assessee is able to actually view it due to internal access issues.

Sections Involved

  • Section 169, CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 – modes of service of notices, including upload on the common portal (clause (d)) and residual modes like affixation (clause (f)).
  • Section 74(9), CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 – final order of determination following a fraud/suppression-based show-cause notice.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Department. Writ petition dismissed on the service issue, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to a statutory appeal.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:39622-DB
  • Case No.: Writ Tax No. 602 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. and Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.
  • Date of Order: 11 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.