Service of notices via registered email under Section 169(1)(c) is adequate under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, affirming no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice occurred.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 02nd February, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 3. The impugned order is challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the notices for personal hearing were not received by the Petitioner.

3. On previous dates of hearing, i.e., 10th March, 2025 and 17th April, 2025, the CGST Department was directed to place on record any documents to show that the personal hearing notices have been given to the Petitioner in this matter.

4. A set of documents, along with an affidavit, has been placed on record by the CGST Department. Mr. Gibran Naushad, ld. Counsel for the CGST Department has shown to the Court that there were three opportunities for hearing which were given to the Petitioner vide two hearing notices.

5. For the first hearing on 16th January, 2025, an e-mail was sent to the registered e-mail address provided by the Petitioner. The e-mail dated 13th January, 2025, sent at 16:33 hrs to pulkitjainca88@gmail.com, which is the registered e-mail address of the Petitioner in the Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter, ‘GST’) portal has been placed on record. The second notice fixing the dates for personal hearing on 23rd January, 2025 and 29th January, 2025, was sent by e-mail to the same e-mail address i.e., pulkitjainca88@gmail.com on 18th January, 2025 at 05:44 p.m.

6. The GST portal of the Petitioner is relevant and is extracted below:

7. A perusal of the above GST portal of the Petitioner would show that the Petitioner is a proprietary concern of Smt. Suman Mathur who has given the registered mobile number as ‘9910208368’. The registered e-mail address is ‘pulkitjainca88@gmail.com’.

8. Insofar as the authorised signatory is concerned, the name is mentioned as Suman Mathur and under the heading of ‘name & contact of GST practitioner’, ‘NA, NA’ has been provided.

9. Thus, the e-mail address which has been provided on the GST portal is presumed to be the registered email of the proprietor itself and is not reflected merely as a GST practitioner or consultant’s e-mail.

10. In fact, the writ petition is conspicuously silent on this fact that the emails for personal hearing were sent to the Petitioner’s registered e-mail address.

11. Be that as it may, under Section 169 (1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’), a communication sent to an email address provided at the time of GST registration is adequate service of a decision, order, summons or notice or any other communication. Relevant portion of the said provision is extracted hereunder:

"169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.—(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:—

xxxx

(c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time..”

12. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , Tax Appeal No. 2756 of 2024 to argue that a notice given to the Chartered Accountant would not be sufficient notice under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

13. Insofar as this issue is concerned, the Court is of the view that the language in the Income Tax Act and in the CGST Act is different. With respect to Section 169 of the Act, this Court has also taken a view recently in W.P. (C