Raj Shekhar Pandey vs State Tax Officer on 16 February, 2026

Uttarakhand High Court

Raj Shekhar Pandey vs State Tax Officer on 16 February, 2026

                                                              2026:UHC:975-DB

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
                                     AND
         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
                         16TH FEBRUARY, 2026
       WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 1140 OF 2025

Raj Shekhar Pandey                                         ......Petitioner.
                                Versus
State Tax Officer                                         ....Respondent.

Counsel for the Petitioner       :         Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State            :         Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder.

JUDGMENT :

(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed praying

for quashing of the order dated 13.01.2025, passed under

Section 37 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,

including show-cause notice dated 16.11.2024, and for a

direction to the respondent to consider the case of the

petitioner afresh.

2. It is admitted to the Revenue that the impugned

proceedings initiated by the issuance of show-cause notice

dated 16.11.2024 and culminating into the impugned order

dated 13.01.2025 were post the surrender/ cancellation of

the GST registration of the petitioner, in pursuance of his

application dated 29.04.2023.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that after cancellation of the registration, the

1
2026:UHC:975-DB

petitioner was not expected to check the GST portal and the

service of notice should have been effected through

alternative modes. In support of his submission, he has

placed reliance on the various judgments of the Allahabad

High Court, particularly, in M/s Ahs Steels vs.

Commissioner of State Taxes (Writ Tax No.1676 of

2024) and M/s Katyal Industries vs. State of U.P. and

others (Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:23697-DB),

wherein the Allahabad High Court, after considering the

decisions of the Apex Court, has observed as follows:-

“25. The twin issues which, therefore, arise for
determination before this Court are: (i) whether the service
of notices exclusively through the GST portal, in the
circumstances of the present case where registration of the
Petitioner stood cancelled, can be regarded as valid service
under Section 169 of the CGST Act; and (ii) whether the
impugned order suffers from violation of the statutory
mandate under Section 75(4) requiring an opportunity of
personal hearing.

26. Section 169 of the CGST Act prescribes multiple
modes for valid service of notice, including (a) direct tender
to the assessee, manager, authorized representative or
family member, (b) registered or speed post or courier; (c)
communication through email, (d) making it available on
the common portal; and (e) by affixation or publication in a
newspaper, if other modes are not practicable. The
legislative intent is clear: while making a notice available
on the common portal is one permissible method, it is not
the exclusive method, and the Department is duty-bound
to ensure effective service in a manner that actually
communicates the notice to the assessee.

27. In the instant case, the Petitioner’s registration
stood cancelled since 2018, and therefore, the Petitioner

2
2026:UHC:975-DB

was not enjoined to monitor the GST portal. The insistence
by the Department that portal-based service alone sufficed
amounts to imposing a duty on a nonregistered person,
which the law does not contemplate. The decisions relied
upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are directly
on point.

28. In light of the above discussion, this Court is
persuaded to hold that the Department, in the present
case, failed to effect valid service of the notices. The
statutory requirement of service under Section 169 has not
been satisfied.

29. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates that an
opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is
received in writing or where an adverse decision is
contemplated. This provision embodies the principle of audi
alteram partem, the right to be heard before an adverse
order is passed. The Supreme Court in Radha Krishan
Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6
SCC 771, while examining the scheme of GST law,
underlined that fiscal adjudications must comply strictly
with the principles of natural justice, and failure to afford a
hearing renders the proceedings vulnerable.”

4. As the facts are not in dispute, therefore, we are

of the opinion that the instant writ petition is squarely

covered by the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of

the Allahabad High Court in M/s Ahs Steels vs.

Commissioner of State Taxes (Writ Tax No.1676 of

2024) and the order passed by us dated 12.01.2026 in

Writ Petition (M/B) No.1065 of 2025, “M/s Jaipal Singh

vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax

Commissionerate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand &

another”. The operative part of the order passed in the

3
2026:UHC:975-DB

said case is as follows:-

“Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024,
passed by respondent No. 2-Assistant Commissioner, State
Tax, Sector-1, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand is
hereby quashed. The Revenue is granted liberty to issue a
fresh notice to the petitioner and, thereafter, adjudicate the
matter in accordance with law. Needless to say that the
petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of personal
hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, if so
desired by the petitioner.”

5. Having regard to the same, we, hereby, quash

the impugned order dated 13.01.2025. The petition is

disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file his reply to

the show-cause notice bearing Reference

No.ZD051124009726N, dated 16.11.2024, within two

weeks and thereafter, it shall be open to the respondent-

Department to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with

law. The petitioner shall be provided personal hearing in

terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act.

6. The petition stands disposed of.

7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed

of.

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dated: 16th February, 2026
NISHANT
Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF

NISHANT KUMAR
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec2b7462b45
2b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD19616
90560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR
Date: 2026.02.17 11:12:17 +05’30’

4