A 1 Enterprises v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
The ruling in brief
A 1 Enterprises filed a writ before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 11634/2026, 13 August 2026) impugning a show cause notice and order under Section 73 CGST on the ground that both were served only by uploading on the GST portal, without proof of actual intimation or receipt, and that no reply had been filed in ignorance. The revenue relied on Section 169 on deemed service through the common portal. The court held that portal-only service without acknowledgement or evidence of receipt is insufficient where the assessee denies effective notice, following the approach in Luxmi Traders on meaningful service for proceedings with serious civil consequences. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee was granted opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand to the adjudication stage. The case reinforces that electronic upload alone does not dispense with the revenue's obligation to establish valid service under Section 169 when the taxpayer had no real opportunity to respond.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.169 — Service of notice in certain circumstances, including portal upload.
- CGST S.73 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid (non-fraud cases).
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
Winstrol Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, State GST
Winstrol Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. challenged Uttarakhand GST adjudication (WP 3695/2024, 11 August 2026) where the show cause notice was uploaded only on the portal after registration cancellation, without alternate modes under Section 169 or personal hearing under Section 73. The demand included tax, interest and penalty determined ex parte. The court held a cancelled registrant is not obliged to monitor the portal; portal-only service was invalid and failure to grant hearing rendered the adjudication order unsustainable. The order was quashed with liberty to the department to proceed after lawful service. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Combined with Ayaz Traders, Uttarakhand law now clearly rejects post-cancellation portal-only demands absent email, registered post or other prescribed service modes under Section 169.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Gajendra Singh Cont. v. Assistant Commissioner
In a contempt-related writ before the Uttarakhand High Court (WP 647/2026, 11 August 2026), Gajendra Singh challenged an adjudication order passed after cancellation of registration, without personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) CGST and with notice served only via portal post-cancellation. The demand related to tax, interest and penalty determined without the petitioner participating. Sections 169, 73 and 75 governed service and hearing. The court quashed the order and directed fresh adjudication after granting proper personal hearing in accordance with law, including valid service where registration no longer required portal monitoring. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. The ruling integrates cancelled-registration service law with mandatory personal hearing under Section 75, preventing ex parte demands where both defects coexist and reinforcing Uttarakhand's approach in Winstrol and Ayaz Traders.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Ayaz Traders v. Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax
Ayaz Traders challenged adjudication before the Uttarakhand High Court (WP 86/2025, 23 July 2026) after its GST registration was cancelled and a show cause notice and order were served only by portal upload under Sections 169 and 73. The assessee contended it was no longer obliged to monitor the portal. The court agreed that exclusive portal service after cancellation is invalid because a non-registrant lacks the statutory duty to track the common portal for new demands. Adjudication and appellate orders were quashed; the revenue may proceed afresh after valid service of the show cause notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. This joins Uttarakhand authority requiring alternate modes under Section 169 when registration stands cancelled, protecting taxpayers from silent ex parte liability.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
B. Enterprise v. State of West Bengal
B. Enterprise filed a writ before the Calcutta High Court (WPA 1079/2026, 22 July 2026) impugning ex parte adjudication under Section 73 CGST. Pre-SCN communications, the show cause notice, reminders and the order appeared only under "Additional notices and orders," not the main Notices/Orders tab, and a personal hearing was scheduled before the reply period expired. Section 169 service and Section 75 hearing requirements were invoked. The court found communication legally inadequate and denial of an effective hearing a violation of natural justice. The ex parte order was set aside with direction to pass a fresh order after affording a proper hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. The judgment combines tab-placement defects with premature hearing dates as independent grounds to vitiate GST adjudication.
In favour of the revenue
Umagaurav (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Umagaurav (P.) Ltd. challenged ex parte GST demand before the Patna High Court (CWJC 4914/2026, 17 July 2026), alleging non-service and denial of hearing. The department showed show cause notices and reminders through portal and registered email with specific input tax credit mismatch figures under Sections 73, 75, 79 and 107 CGST and Rule 142. The petitioner neither categorically denied email receipt nor disclosed correct GSTR-2A ITC to rebut the mismatch. Article 226 scope was noted: writ courts do not rehear merits when procedural objections are implausible. Bare allegations lacked credibility against departmental records evidencing participation. The writ failed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Bihar assessees cannot rely on generic non-service pleas where email and portal trails plus undisputed ITC discrepancies show effective engagement, contrasting Subhash Kumar Sah where no such record existed.