Facts of the Case

Deen Dayal Upadhyay's GST registration under the UPGST Act had been cancelled on 12.10.2019, and it remained undisputed that the registration was never revived, nor had the petitioner ever sought its revival. Show cause notices for the period April 2019-March 2020 were nevertheless issued through the e-mode (GST portal), culminating in an adjudication order dated 29.08.2024. The petitioner challenged that order on the ground that it never received the notices, since it had no active registration or continuing obligation to monitor the portal.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a person whose GST registration stands cancelled, and who never sought its revival, is obligated to monitor the GST portal for show cause notices issued through e-mode.
  2. Whether an adjudication order passed without any physical/offline service, where the assessee had no live registration, satisfies natural justice.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner's registration having been cancelled in 2019, it was not obligated to visit the GST portal to check for notices issued years later through e-mode.
  • No physical or offline notice of the proceedings was ever served, either before the show cause notice or before the adjudication order.

Respondent's Arguments

  • It was not the Revenue's case that the registration had ever been revived, nor that any physical/offline notice had in fact been served on the petitioner.

Court Order / Findings

  • Given that the registration was cancelled since 2019 and never revived, it was found to merit acceptance that the petitioner was not obligated to monitor the GST portal for e-mode notices concerning a period that followed cancellation.
  • It was also undisputed that no physical or offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the impugned order.
  • In these peculiar facts, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to an alternative statutory remedy.
  • Since the essential requirement of natural justice had not been fulfilled, the order dated 29.08.2024 was set aside, with the petitioner permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks.
  • Subject to that compliance, a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

Important Clarification

  • A cancelled and never-revived GST registration changes the natural-justice calculus for e-mode/portal service — a person with no live registration is not expected to keep checking the portal, so portal-only service in such cases will not be treated as effective.
  • In the absence of any physical/offline notice as a fallback, an adjudication order against a person in this position is liable to be set aside on natural justice grounds without further inquiry into the merits of the tax dispute.

Sections Involved

  • Section 169, CGST/UP GST Act, 2017 — modes of service of notices/orders.
  • Section 29, CGST Act, 2017 — cancellation of registration, relevant to the petitioner's status during the notice period.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee — the adjudication order is quashed for want of effective service and natural justice, with the matter remanded for a fresh order after personal hearing.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:130550-DB; Writ Tax No. 3576 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.; Order dated 01.08.2025.

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.