Allahabad High Court
M/S PRISCA GLOBALversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SARDHANA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The adjudication order is set aside for breaching natural justice, and a fresh physical notice must be issued.
Summary
The petitioner, M/S Prisca Global, challenged an adjudication order dated 17‑05‑2024 issued after its GST registration had been cancelled on 09‑09‑2021. The respondents served a show‑cause notice electronically via the Common Portal, despite the cancellation that disabled the petitioner from accessing the portal. The petitioner argued that, under Section 169(1)(a)(b) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, a physical notice is required after cancellation and that the electronic service violated the right to be heard protected by Section 75(4). The Court agreed, citing the principle of natural justice and the precedent in M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the adjudication order was set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh physical notice, with a timeline for reply and hearing. The petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether an electronic show‑cause notice served after GST registration cancellation complies with Section 169(1)(a)(b) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017.
- Whether the failure to serve a physical notice violates the petitioner’s right to be heard under Section 75(4) of the Act.
Legislation cited
- U.P. GST Act, 2017 — s. 169(1)(a)(b), 75(4)
Subjects
- natural justice
- show cause notice
- GST registration cancellation
- Section 169
- Section 75
- adjudication
- procedural fairness
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 2523 of 2026
M/S Prisca Global
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, Sardhana And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sumeet Mishra, Suyash Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents, briefly it has to be considered if the
adjudication order dated 17.05.2024 arising from show cause notice dated
07.03.2024 suffers from patent illegality resulting in complete denial of
opportunity to object or being heard in the adjudication proceedings.
Undeniably, the petitioner's registration stood cancelled by order dated
09.09.2021. Thereafter the show cause notice was first issued to the
petitioner through electronic mode, by uploading it on the Common Portal.
2. It is the own case of the respondents, as noted in M/S Bambino Agro
Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.; 2025:AHC:229995-
DB, that in cases where registration may have been cancelled, such persons
may be proceeded in adjudication proceedings only against service of
physical notice. The circular providing for such measure follows the dictate
of common sense. Once the registration is cancelled and the registered
persons thus disabled from working on the Common Portal and in any case,
are relieved of obligation to check the Common Portal thereafter, it is wholly
natural and practical that any adjudication notice issued after cancellation of
registration may be served through physically in terms of the provisions of
Section 169(1)(a)(b) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017.
3. To the extent, no such physical notice has been issued or served on the
petitioner, rules of natural justice are seen to have been substantially violated
as may have prevented the petitioner from filing any objection/reply to such
WTAX No. 2523 of 2026
2
show cause notice.
4. In view of that breach of essential principles of natural justice noted, no
useful purpose may be served in keeping the present writ petition pending or
calling for counter affidavit at this stage. Primarily, the petitioner's right to
be heard is statutorily protected under Section 75 (4) of the said Act.
5. Accordingly, the impugned adjudication order dated 17.05.2024 is set
aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 1 to pass a fresh order
strictly in accordance with law.
6. For that purpose, we further provide the said respondent may issue a fresh
notice to the petitioner through physical mode, along with copies of Relied
Upon Documents ('RUDs' in short) within a period of ten days from today.
7. Subject to such compliance, the petitioner shall have two weeks therefrom
to file his written reply through physical mode and thereafter the respondent
no. 1 may fix appropriate date for hearing in the proceedings with at least 15
days advance notice. Subject to that compliance, the petitioner undertakes to
cooperate in the proceedings and not seek any adjournment. Thereafter the
proceedings may be concluded not later than two months from the date of
filing of reply by the petitioner.
8. The present petition is disposed of.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
May 14, 2026
Abhilash
Digitally signed by :-
ABHILASH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…