Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

What happened

The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 21 November 2020. Almost five years later, on 30 September 2025, a show-cause notice was issued to it through the common portal alone. The petitioner did not know of the proceedings, so the adjudication under section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 went ahead ex parte and an order was passed on 28 March 2026. The petitioner came to know of it only when recovery was pursued, and challenged the order in a writ petition.

Questions before the court

• Can an adjudication order stand where the only notice was uploaded on the common portal long after the taxpayer's registration had been cancelled?

Why the court ruled this way

The Court noted that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh had, by a circular of 7 May 2025, issued binding instructions to subordinate officers to ensure physical service of notice on persons facing adjudication that began after cancellation of their registration. It described that circular as founded on sound common sense: a person whose registration is cancelled may be unable, and is not obliged, to work on the portal, and unless he does so he may never learn of proceedings started against him (paragraphs 4 and 5). The Standing Counsel accepted that, given the circular, there was no quarrel with that proposition (paragraph 6). The Court therefore saw no purpose in keeping the petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit (paragraph 7).

Controlling point

Portal-only service of a show-cause notice after cancellation of registration does not give the taxpayer a real opportunity to respond, and an ex parte order founded on it cannot be sustained.

Order and next steps

The adjudication order of 28 March 2026 was set aside. The petitioner may file its final reply to the show-cause notice of 30 September 2025 within two weeks, together with any application to cross-examine witnesses or to be supplied the documents relied on; such an application is to be decided before a hearing date is fixed. The adjudicating authority must then give at least 15 days' notice of a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order within one further month, so that the proceedings are concluded by 31 December 2026.

Practical implications

A registered person whose registration was cancelled and who later finds an ex parte demand can point to the physical-service circular and to this order when seeking to reopen it. Keep the cancellation order and the date the demand came to notice, and file the reply and any request for documents or cross-examination together within the time the Court allowed.

Limits of this ruling

• The order is a disposal by consent on the State's own circular; it does not decide what service is valid in other circumstances. It does not decide the merits of the demand, which remain open for the adjudicating authority.