Allahabad High Court

M/S HANUMAN TRADIND COMPANYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH

Holding

The adjudication order is set aside because the show‑cause notice was not served physically as required, violating statutory provisions and natural justice.

Summary

The petitioner, M/s Hanuman Trading Company, challenged an adjudication order dated 04‑04‑2024 issued after a show‑cause notice was served electronically on 12‑12‑2023, despite its GST registration having been cancelled on 13‑01‑2021. The Court examined whether, under Section 169(1)(a)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017, a physical notice is mandatory when a registration is cancelled, and whether the electronic service violated the petitioner’s right to be heard under Section 75(4) of the same Act. Relying on the precedent set in M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that a physical notice is required and that the failure to serve one breached natural justice. Consequently, the adjudication order was set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent to issue a fresh physical notice and conduct the proceedings in accordance with law. The petition was thereafter disposed.

Issues considered

Whether service of a show‑cause notice via the Common Portal after cancellation of GST registration violates Section 169(1)(a)(b) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017.
Whether such service amounts to a breach of the petitioner’s right to be heard under Section 75(4) of the Act.
What appropriate relief should be granted when the procedural requirement of physical notice is not complied with?

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 169(1)(a)(b), 75(4)

Subjects

GST registration cancellation
show cause notice
physical notice requirement
natural justice
Section 169
Section 75
adjudication proceedings
High Court writ petition

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 2530 of 2026

M/S Hanuman Tradind Company
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vishwjeet
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 04.04.2024 arising from show cause notice dated
12.12.2023 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
13.01.2021. 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. 2530 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 04.04.2024 is set
aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2 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. 2 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…