Allahabad High Court
M/S PRISCA GLOBALversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX (SGST) AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The adjudication order is set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh physical notice and hearing in accordance with law.
Summary
The petitioner, M/S Prisca Global, challenged an adjudication order dated 13‑02‑2025 issued after its GST registration was cancelled on 09‑09‑2021. The State had served a show‑cause notice electronically via the Common Portal, despite the cancellation that disabled the petitioner from accessing the portal. The Court held that, under Section 169(1)(a)(b) of the U.P. GST Act, a physical notice is required when registration is cancelled, and the failure to serve such notice violated the petitioner’s right to be heard under Section 75(4). Consequently, the adjudication order was set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh physical notice and a proper hearing. The Court directed timelines for issuing the notice, filing a reply, and concluding the proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether an electronic show‑cause notice issued after cancellation of GST registration is valid.
- Whether the failure to serve a physical notice violates the principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act.
- Whether the adjudication order dated 13‑02‑2025 is liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
- U.P. GST Act, 2017 — s. 169(1)(a), 169(1)(b), 75(4)
Subjects
- GST
- registration cancellation
- show cause notice
- natural justice
- Section 75
- Section 169
- adjudication
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 2524 of 2026
M/S Prisca Global
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, State Tax (Sgst) 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 13.02.2025 arising from show cause notice dated
30.11.2024 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. 2524 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 13.02.2025 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…