Demand orders based solely on portal notices after GST registration cancellation are legally invalid.

By | July 17, 2026

Demand orders based solely on portal notices after GST registration cancellation are legally invalid.

Demand orders based solely on portal notices after GST registration cancellation are legally invalid.

Issue

  • Whether the service of a show cause notice by merely uploading it onto the common GST portal is legally valid and sufficient if the assessee’s registration has already been cancelled and their business has been completely discontinued.

Facts

  • The assessee was a registered taxpayer under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act.

  • The tax authorities subsequently cancelled the assessee’s GST registration.

  • Following the cancellation of the registration, the assessee completely shut down and did not carry on any further business activities.

  • The Revenue initiated demand proceedings and served the foundational show cause notice exclusively by uploading it onto the common GST portal.

  • Because the assessee did not respond to the portal upload, the Proper Officer proceeded to pass an ex-parte final demand order against them.

Decision

  • The court held that once a taxpayer’s GST registration stands officially cancelled and their business operations are discontinued, they are under no legal obligation to routinely log in and check the GST portal.

  • The court ruled that under such circumstances, serving a show cause notice solely through a portal upload is insufficient and the Revenue must deploy alternative modes of service to ensure actual communication.

  • Adopting the legal principles established by a coordinate Bench in the Katyal Industries precedent, the court determined that a portal-only service in this specific scenario constitutes a direct breach of the principles of natural justice.

  • Consequently, the court quashed the impugned demand order but granted the Revenue the liberty to issue a fresh, proper notice via alternative means and proceed strictly in accordance with the law.

Key Takeaways

  • No Dynamic Portal Duty Post-Cancellation: The statutory expectation for a business to actively monitor its digital dashboard on the GST portal effectively terminates once its formal tax registration is dissolved and operations cease.

  • Mandatory Alternative Service: If the Revenue intends to raise demands against a closed or deregistered entity, relying on automated web portal alerts is legally hazardous; physical service, email, or other direct communication methods under Section 169 must be utilized.

  • Natural Justice Preservation: A failure to establish actual notice breaks the bedrock framework of natural justice. Any subsequent demand order built on top of a digitally obscured notice will be summarily set aside by the courts due to a foundational procedural failure.

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shree Ganesh Infra
v.
State of U.P.
Shekhar B. Saraf and ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, JJ.
WRIT TAX No. 1728 of 2025
JULY  7, 2026
Nishendra Kumar Pandey and Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Counsels for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1. Heard Sri Nishendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner, Sector-02, State Tax Office, 317, Hiran Nagar, Unnao, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
3. Factual matrix in the matter is that the petitioner’s registration under the Act was cancelled on November 7, 2020. Subsequent to the same, no business was carried out by the petitioner. It appears that a show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal and subsequent to the same, the order impugned was passed under Section 73 of the Act.
4. Once the registration has been cancelled, the petitioner is not obligated to check GST portal. The mode of service of any show cause notice has to be by way of alternative means to the petitioner.
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon an order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. 2024:AHC:23697-DB. We are essentially in agreement with the said principle enunciated by the coordinate Bench in the said order.
6. We find that there has been violation of the principle of natural justice, and accordingly, the impugned order dated August 7, 2024 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The Department shall be at liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and act in accordance with law.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.