Uttarakhand HC Quashes Ex-Parte GST Assessment for Lack of Valid Notice: Fresh Hearing Ordered u/s Section 75(4) [Read Order]
The court reinforced that portal-based service alone cannot bind a deregistered assessee, and that natural justice remains central to GST adjudication.
![Uttarakhand HC Quashes Ex-Parte GST Assessment for Lack of Valid Notice: Fresh Hearing Ordered u/s Section 75(4) [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/03/25/2130246-uttarakhand-hc-quashes-gst-assessment-for-lack-of-valid-notice-fresh-hearing-ordered.webp "Uttarakhand HC Quashes Ex-Parte GST Assessment for Lack of Valid Notice: Fresh Hearing Ordered u/s Section 75(4) [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has quashed an ex parte assessment order and recovery proceedings, citing a lack of valid notice, and ruled that an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) is mandatory before passing any adverse order. The dispute arose from a show-cause notice dated 14 December 2022, alleging non-payment of tax for FY 2020–21....
In a recent ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has quashed an ex parte assessment order and recovery proceedings, citing a lack of valid notice, and ruled that an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) is mandatory before passing any adverse order.
The dispute arose from a show-cause notice dated 14 December 2022, alleging non-payment of tax for FY 2020–21. The petitioner, a sole proprietorship engaged in iron scrap trading, had already applied for cancellation of its GST registration in August 2020, citing business closure during the Covid-19 pandemic. The registration was formally cancelled with effect from 31 March 2023.
Unaware of portal-based notices, the petitioner did not respond, leading to an ex parte assessment order dated 3 February 2024 under Section 74(9), imposing heavy demands and initiating recovery proceedings.
The petitioner, A.S. Traders, challenged the proceedings, relying on Allahabad High Court rulings in M/s Ahs Steels and M/s Katyal Industries, which held that portal-only service is insufficient once registration is cancelled, and that Section 75(4) mandates a personal hearing before adverse orders.
After considering submissions, the bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay observed that “The Department, in the present case, failed to effect valid service of the notices. The statutory requirement of service under Section 169 has not been satisfied. Fiscal adjudications must comply strictly with the principles of natural justice.”
The high court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 23.02.2024 and the consequent citation of recovery dated 23.02.2024. Also directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice within two weeks. The Revenue was granted liberty to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, ensuring an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4).
Accordingly, the writ petition was thus disposed of.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
