If a Taxpayer Does Not Respond to GST Portal Notices, Officer Must Explore Other Modes of Service Before Passing Ex-Parte Order: Madras High Court
Case Summary
- Petitioner: Tvl. M. Muthukumar Store
- Respondent: The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai
- Court: Madras High Court
- Bench: Madurai Bench
- Date of Order: 18 December 2025
- Case No.: W.P. (MD) No. 36134 of 2025
Background of the Case (In Simple Terms)
In this case, the GST Department issued a show cause notice (SCN) and subsequent communications only by uploading them on the GST common portal.
The taxpayer contended that:
- They were not aware of the notices uploaded on the portal,
- No physical copy of the show cause notice was served,
- No personal hearing was granted before passing the assessment order dated 12.02.2025.
As a result, the officer passed an ex-parte assessment order, confirming the proposals in the show cause notice without hearing the taxpayer.
Key Legal Issue
Whether merely uploading notices on the GST portal is sufficient when the taxpayer does not respond, or whether the officer must explore other statutory modes of service before passing an ex-parte order.
Relevant Legal Provision – Section 169 of the GST Act
Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribes multiple valid modes of service, including:
- Uploading on the GST portal,
- Sending by Registered Post / Speed Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD),
- Email,
- Hand delivery,
- Publication in newspapers, etc.
The law does not mandate exclusive reliance on the portal if service is ineffective.
Findings of the Madras High Court
The Court made several important observations:
1. Portal Service Is Valid, But Not Absolute
The Court acknowledged that uploading notices on the GST portal is a valid mode of service under Section 169.
However, valid service does not automatically mean effective service.
2. Officer Must Apply His Mind
The Court held that when:
- Notices are repeatedly uploaded on the portal, and
- There is no response from the taxpayer,
the officer cannot mechanically proceed ex-parte.
Instead, the officer must:
- Apply his/her mind, and
- Explore other modes of service provided under Section 169.
3. Failure to Use Alternate Modes Is “Empty Formality”
A very significant observation by the Court:
Merely uploading notices and passing an ex-parte order, despite non-response, amounts to fulfilling empty formalities.
Such action:
- Does not serve the object of the GST Act,
- Leads to avoidable litigation,
- Wastes time of:
- Departmental officers,
- Appellate Authorities,
- High Courts.
4. RPAD Suggested as Preferable Mode
The Court specifically noted that:
- Service by RPAD would be a more effective method when portal notices go unanswered,
- This helps ensure actual knowledge of proceedings to the taxpayer.
5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
Since:
- No personal hearing was granted, and
- Effective service was lacking,
the assessment order was held to be passed in violation of natural justice.
Final Directions of the Court
The Madras High Court set aside the assessment order and passed the following directions:
- Assessment Order Quashed & Matter Remanded
- The impugned order dated 12.02.2025 was set aside.
- Condition of Pre-Deposit
- The taxpayer must pay 25% of the disputed tax amount within 4 weeks.
- The order will stand set aside only after payment.
- Opportunity to File Reply
- Taxpayer to file objections with documents within 3 weeks of payment.
- Mandatory Personal Hearing
- The officer must:
- Issue 14 clear days’ notice, and
- Grant personal hearing before passing a fresh order.
- The officer must:
Why This Judgment Is Important (Practical Impact)
For Taxpayers
- Portal non-response alone cannot justify ex-parte orders.
- Right to effective service and personal hearing is reaffirmed.
- Strong ground to challenge arbitrary assessments.
For GST Officers
- Duty to use discretion responsibly.
- Mandatory to consider alternate service modes when portal notices fail.
- Mechanical portal-based proceedings may not survive judicial scrutiny.
Comparable Case Law Trend
This judgment aligns with a growing line of High Court rulings holding that:
- Natural justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technology,
- GST portal is a facilitative tool, not a substitute for fair procedure.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court has clearly laid down that:
When a taxpayer does not respond to GST portal notices, the officer must not act mechanically. He must explore other statutory modes of service under Section 169 before passing an ex-parte order.
This ruling strengthens procedural fairness under GST and discourages avoidable litigation caused by ineffective service of notices.
Mere Uploading of Notice or Order on GST Portal Does Not Amount to ‘Service’ or ‘Communication’: Allahabad High Court
Case Overview
- Case Title: Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
- Court: Allahabad High Court
- Date of Decision: 19 December 2025
- Case No.: Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is a landmark ruling on GST procedural law, especially on service of notices and orders. The Allahabad High Court has clearly held that mere uploading of a notice or adjudication order on the GST portal does not automatically fulfill the legal requirement of “service” or “communication”, particularly for starting the limitation period for filing appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act.
The ruling protects taxpayers from losing appellate remedies due to technical and unverifiable electronic service.
Background of the Dispute (Easy Explanation)
- The GST authorities passed adjudication orders against the petitioner.
- These orders were only uploaded on the GST common portal / sent electronically.
- The Department treated such uploading as complete service, thereby starting the appeal limitation period under Section 107.
- The taxpayer challenged this approach, arguing that:
- There is no proof of actual communication,
- GSTN cannot confirm when or whether the order was viewed or downloaded,
- Hence, limitation cannot start automatically.
Core Legal Question Before the Court
Does uploading a notice or order on the GST portal, without acknowledgment or proof of access, constitute “service” or “communication” for the purpose of limitation under Section 107 of the GST Act?
Statutory Framework Explained
1. Section 169 of the GST Act – Modes of Service
Section 169(1) of the CGST / State GST Acts provides six modes of service, including:
- Personal delivery,
- Registered or Speed Post with acknowledgement,
- Email,
- Uploading on the GST common portal,
- Newspaper publication,
- Affixation.
However, Sections 169(2) and 169(3) create a deeming fiction of service only for certain traditional modes, such as:
- Tendering personally,
- Speed post with acknowledgement,
- Newspaper publication,
- Affixation.
👉 No such deeming fiction exists for electronic modes like:
- Portal upload,
- Email,
- SMS.
2. Section 107 – Appeal Limitation
Section 107 provides that an appeal must be filed within a prescribed period from the date of “communication” of the order.
The Court stressed that:
- “Communication” is not a mechanical act,
- It requires actual or legally presumed knowledge of the order.
Key Findings of the Allahabad High Court
1. Electronic Service Is Permissible, But Not Deemed Service
The Court accepted that:
- Uploading on the GST portal or sending emails is legally permissible under Section 169(1).
However:
- The legislature did not provide a deeming fiction of service for electronic modes.
- Therefore, mere uploading ≠ automatic service.
2. No Proof of Receipt or Access
A critical observation:
GSTN and revenue authorities cannot confirm when or whether a notice or order uploaded on the portal has been retrieved or downloaded by the taxpayer.
Without:
- View logs,
- Download timestamps,
- Acknowledgment receipts,
👉 No inference can be drawn regarding the date of service.
3. IT Act Provisions Are Insufficient by Themselves
The Department relied on:
- Sections 4, 12 and 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (electronic records and dispatch/receipt).
The Court clarified:
- IT Act provisions govern electronic dispatch and receipt,
- But they do not substitute the requirement of effective communication under GST law,
- Especially when acknowledgment mechanisms are absent on the GST portal.
4. Limitation Under Section 107 Cannot Automatically Start
Because:
- Actual or constructive communication is unproven,
- The limitation period for filing appeal does not begin automatically merely on portal upload.
This principle follows settled law laid down by the Supreme Court.
5. Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The Court referred to Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, where it was held that:
Limitation begins only when the order is effectively communicated or made known to the affected party.
6. Violation of Natural Justice
The Court emphasized:
- Procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience,
- Taxpayers must have a real opportunity to know and respond,
- Mechanical reliance on portal uploads undermines natural justice.
Final Relief Granted by the Court
- Adjudication Orders were set aside.
- Matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.
- Petitioners were directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand.
- Fresh hearings to be conducted with due notice and opportunity.
Important Practical Observations by the Court
- State GST authorities are increasingly relying only on electronic service.
- Central GST authorities, in contrast, continue to use physical modes along with electronic communication.
- The Court implicitly endorsed the pragmatic hybrid approach.
Practical Impact of This Judgment
For Taxpayers
- Appeal rights cannot be defeated by silent portal uploads.
- Strong ground to challenge:
- Time-bar objections,
- Ex-parte orders based only on portal service.
- Reinforces right to effective communication.
For GST Authorities
- Portal upload should not be the sole mode when consequences are serious.
- Physical service (RPAD / speed post) provides legal certainty.
- Reduces avoidable litigation.
Key Takeaway
Mere uploading of notices or orders on the GST portal, without acknowledgment or proof of access, does not fulfill the deeming fiction of “service” or “communication” under the GST law. Limitation under Section 107 begins only upon effective communication.
Relevant Provisions & Case Law
- GST Act: Sections 107, 169
- IT Act: Sections 4, 12, 13
- Supreme Court: Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer
- High Court: Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad HC)