Allahabad High Court
MUKESH KUMAR JAINversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST
- Decided
Holding
The adjudication order dated 21‑April‑2026 is set aside as the petitioner was not duly served notice in accordance with the statutory and circular requirements.
Summary
Mukesh Kumar Jain challenged an adjudication order dated 21‑April‑2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 74 of the CGST Act, arguing that his GST registration was cancelled on 5‑Sept‑2023 and the show‑cause notice was served only electronically on 25‑June‑2025, leaving him unaware of the proceedings and resulting in an ex‑parte order. The Court observed a circular dated 7‑May‑2025 issued by the U.P. Commissioner of Commercial Tax directing physical service of notice to persons whose registration had been cancelled, highlighting the impracticality of relying solely on electronic communication. In view of the circular and the petitioner’s lack of actual notice, the Court held that the adjudication order could not stand. The Court set aside the impugned adjudication order, permitted the petitioner to file a final reply to the show‑cause notice within two weeks, and laid down procedural steps for any further applications, personal hearing, and the final order. The judgment reinforces the requirement of proper service of notice in CGST adjudication proceedings after registration cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether service of a show‑cause notice solely through the Common Portal after cancellation of GST registration satisfies the requirements of natural justice in adjudication proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
- Whether the adjudication order dated 21‑April‑2026 is vitiated by lack of proper notice as mandated by the U.P. Commercial Tax Commissioner’s circular dated 7‑May‑2025.
Legislation cited
- CGST Act, 2017 — s. 74
Subjects
- CGST
- Section 74
- adjudication
- service of notice
- ex‑parte order
- registration cancellation
- high court writ petition
- natural justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 3839 of 2026
Mukesh Kumar Jain
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, Cgst
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Puneet Arun
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dhananjay Awasthi
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Sri Puneet Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit
Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. Challenge has been raised to the adjudication order dated 21.04.2026
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division I, Muzaffarnagar
under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.
3. Short ground pressed is that the registration of the petitioner was
cancelled on 05.09.2023 whereas the show-cause notice was issued only
through Common Portal i.e. through electronic mode on 25.06.2025 years
after cancellation of the registration. For that reason, the petitioner was
not aware of the adjudication proceedings. It thus remained ex parte.
4. Only upon recovery being pursued against the petitioner as a
consequence of ex parte Adjudication Order dated 21.04.2026, the
petitioner acquired the knowledge of the same. It may be noted that the
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. vide its Circular dated
07.05.2025 issued binding instructions to its subordinate authorities to
ensure service of physical notice on the noticees facing adjudication
proceedings initiated after cancellation of their respective registration.
5. The above Circular is founded on sound common sense inasmuch as
once the registration of a person is cancelled, he may remain disabled and
in any case he may not be obligated to work on the Common Portal,
thereafter. Unless the person works on the Common Portal against the
WTAX No. 3839 of 2026
2
registration number assigned to him, he may remain unaware of any
proceedings instituted against him, after cancellation of its registration.
6. Confronted with the situation, learned Standing Counsel would submit,
in face of the Circular issued by the Commissioner, there can be no
quarrel with the above proposition.
7. In view of the above, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the
present petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit, at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of on the following
terms :
(i) The impugned Adjudication Order dated 21.04.2026 is set
aside.
(ii) The petitioner may file its final reply to the show-cause
notice dated 25.06.2025 within a period of two weeks from
today.
(iii) If the petitioner wants to claim an opportunity to cross-
examine any witness or to be supplied documents relied upon
etc., the petitioner may necessarily make such application
alongwith reply. Such application, if filed may be dealt with
and decided before fixing any date for final hearing.
(iv) Thereafter, the adjudicating authority may fix and
communicate the petitioner the date for personal hearing with
at lease 15 days advance notice.
(v) The adjudicating authority may then pass appropriate
reasoned order within a further period of one month such that
the proceedings may be concluded on or before 31.12.2026.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
September 18, 2026
Anurag/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…