Serving notices to an old address despite updated GST registration records violates natural justice.

The Dispute: System Records vs. Physical Service

The Conflict: The Petitioner updated their business address in 2017, and the change was officially reflected in their GST Registration Certificate (Form GST REG-06). However, the Department issued the Show-Cause Notice (SCN), the assessment order, and even the appellate order to the old address.

The Consequence: Because the Petitioner never received the notices, they could not file a reply or attend hearings. An ex parte demand was created. Even when the Petitioner filed an appeal and explicitly pointed out the new address, the Appellate Authority repeated the mistake by sending the final rejection to the old location.

The Judicial Verdict

The High Court quashed the SCN and all subsequent orders, remanding the matter for a fresh start based on these legal findings:

1. Obligation of the “Proper Officer”

The Court held that the Department is “possessed of” the updated address once it is updated on the GST portal. It is the duty of the officer to verify the current registered address in Form GST REG-06 before initiating any proceedings under Section 169.

2. “Effective Service” is Not a Formality

Under Section 169, the goal of “service” is to ensure the taxpayer is actually informed. Sending documents to an obsolete address—despite having the correct one on record—renders the service a “nullity.” This effectively denies the taxpayer the right to a defense (Audi Alteram Partem).

3. Breach of Natural Justice

Since the Petitioner was never legally “served,” the entire proceeding—from the SCN to the Appellate Order—was fundamentally flawed. The Court ruled that such a breach of natural justice cannot be cured by the Appellate Authority simply confirming the order; the entire process must be restarted.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Keep REG-06 Updated: Always ensure your “Principal Place of Business” is updated on the GST portal. If the Department sends a notice to an old address after you’ve updated the portal, the law is on your side.
The “Notice” Defense: If you discover a demand in your electronic liability register but never received the physical or digital notice, check which address the Department used. If it’s an old one, you have strong grounds for a Writ Petition.
Appellate Memo Strategy: When filing an appeal (Form APL-01), always highlight any change in address in the “Statement of Facts.” If the Appellate Authority still sends the order to the old address, it demonstrates a “lack of application of mind,” which is a strong point for further litigation.
Remand Benefit: In this case, the “remand” means the taxpayer gets a fresh opportunity to contest the tax demand on its actual merits, rather than being forced to pay a default demand.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Sachde Roadlines

Union of India^*

A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, JJ.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2515 of 2026

FEBRUARY 26, 2026

Abhay Y Desai for the Petitioner. Neel P Lakhani and Nidhi T Vyas for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.- RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Nidhi Vyas waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Since a short question of law is raised in the writ petition, the same was heard extensively and is finally decided today by this present judgment and order.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

“9(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned show-cause notice dated 22.10.2020 (Annexure-I) issued by the 2^nd respondents being contrary to the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, illegal, excessive and wholly without jurisdiction.

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 29.03.2024 (Annexure-J) issued by the second respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, excessive and wholly without jurisdiction;

(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order in appeal dated 15.10.2025(Annexure N) passed by the 3^rd respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, excessive and wholly without jurisdiction;”

3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Abhay Desai appearing for the petitioner has submitted that despite the intimation of the present petitioner to the respondent authorities about the change of address, the entire proceedings have been undertaken on the earlier address, neither the petitioner received the notices nor the adjudicating order or the appellate order. Thus, it is submitted that in fact the petitioner has intimated his fresh address on 27.06.2017. He has also submitted that the Registration Certificate under Form GST REG-06 also mentions about details of new address, however, the respondents have the issued show cause-cum-demand notice dated 22.10.2020 at the old address.

3.1. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority also passed an order and the petitioner was not aware about the same and ultimately when the petitioner came to know he filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Form ST-4 intimating his fresh address. The appellate authority has passed the order in appeal on 15.10.2025 by mentioning the old address. Thus, it is urged that the entire proceedings may be set aside.

4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Nidhi Vyas appearing for the respondents on oral instructions has submitted that the respondent was required to examine approximately 1400 assessee’s and it appears that the respondent authorities while issuing the demand show cause-cum-demand notice were oblivious of the fact that the petitioner has change the residence and the notices as well as the orders were served at the old address. Thus, learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Nidhi Vyas has submitted that though the orders passed against the petitioner are on the old address, the same may not be set aside.

5. From the pleadings as well as from the documents on record it is established that the petitioner in the year 2017 i.e. on 27.06.2017 had informed about his change in address and thereafter in Form GST REG-06 a complete new address has been given. However, the subsequent demand-cum show cause notice dated 22.10.2025 under Section 174(2) (d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been issued upon the petitioner on the old address which the petitioner never received. The subsequent proceedings were also conveyed at the old address and ultimately the petitioner when filed an appeal against the order dated 29.03.2024, in appeal Form ST-4 had given his fresh address. Despite the contentions having been raised by the petitioner that none of the show cause notices or the order dated 29.03.2025 has been received by him, the appellate authority proceeded to pass an order in appeal without dealing with this contention. It is pertinent to note that the appellate authority also committed same mistake and the order in appeal dated 15.10.2025 has been passed and communicated at the old address. Hence, the petitioner has been denied an opportunity to defend his case by serving notices and the subsequent order at the old address.

6. In view of the above, the present writ petition on this short ground succeeds. The impugned show cause notice as well as the order are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the appropriate authorities to undertake fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if permissible under law. The same shall be decided within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is however, observed that all the rights and contentions of the respective parties are kept open. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.