Uploading Notice/Order on GST Portal is Valid Service under S.169(1)(d) GST Act: Madras High Court - 2025-05-02

Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Serving GST Notices via Common Portal, Remands Cases on Consent

Chennai, April 25, 2025: The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling addressing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, has held that making notices, orders, or other communications available on the GST Common Portal constitutes a valid mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017. Justice MohammedShaffiq , while affirming the legal validity of portal-based service, ultimately remanded a batch of writ petitions back to the adjudicating authorities based on the consent of the parties, subject to the petitioners depositing a portion of the disputed tax.

Case Background

The court heard a batch of writ petitions, with M/s. Poomika Infra Developers and M/s. MV Creations being the lead petitioners. They challenged assessment orders passed by the State Tax Officers, raising demands for various assessment periods under the GST Act. The primary ground for challenge was that the petitioners were unaware of the proceedings – including the intimation (DRC-01A), show cause notice (DRC-01), and the final adjudication order (DRC-07) – as these were only uploaded onto the GST Common Portal and not served through other means like registered post or email. They argued this violated principles of natural justice as they couldn't participate in the adjudication process.

Core Legal Dispute : Validity of Portal Service

The central question before the court was whether making a notice or order available on the common portal under Section 169(1)(d) is a valid and sufficient method of service.

Petitioners' Stance: * Argued that Section 169 lists multiple service modes, and uploading to the portal (clause d) should only be resorted to if methods like direct delivery, post, or email (clauses a-c) are impracticable. * Contended that service is complete only when the communication is retrieved by the taxpayer, not merely upon upload. * Submitted that the common portal, primarily notified under Section 146 for facilitation (registration, returns, payments), wasn't explicitly notified for serving adjudicatory notices/orders. * Claimed the portal is the department's resource, not the taxpayer's "designated computer resource" under the Information Technology Act, 2000, hence receipt occurs only upon retrieval. * Highlighted potential hardship for taxpayers lacking technical expertise.

Revenue's Stance: * Argued that Section 169(1) explicitly states service can be by "any one of the following methods," making modes (a) to (e) clear alternatives. Affixture (f) is the method of last resort. * Asserted that Section 169 is a standalone provision for service and doesn't depend on Section 146 notification for its operation regarding service modes. * Contended the common portal, accessed via unique login credentials, is a "designated computer resource" for the taxpayer under the IT Act, meaning receipt occurs when the record enters the portal. * Maintained that statutory provisions cannot be invalidated based on claims of hardship for some taxpayers.

Court's Detailed Analysis on Service Validity

Justice Shaffiq conducted a thorough analysis of Section 169:

Alternate Modes: The court found the plain language ("served by any one of the following methods") indicates that clauses (a) to (e) are alternative modes of service. Service by affixture (clause f) is permissible only if modes (a) to (e) are not practicable.

Binding Precedent: The court relied on a Division Bench decision in A. Sanjeevi Naidu (1972) , which interpreted a similar provision (Rule 52, TNGST Rules) to mean that the initial modes were alternatives before resorting to affixture. Justice Shaffiq stated he couldn't concur with recent coordinate bench views suggesting clauses (a)-(c) needed to be exhausted before (d), finding the Division Bench precedent binding.

Avoiding Superfluity: Interpreting portal service (d) as secondary would render the phrase "any one of the following methods" redundant and amount to judicial legislation.

Hardship vs. Law: While acknowledging potential difficulties for some taxpayers, the court invoked the maxim 'dura lex sed lex' (the law is hard, but it is the law), stating hardship cannot override the clear statutory provision.

Section 146 vs. Section 169: The court clarified that while Section 146 allows notification of the portal for various functions, Section 169 independently designates making communications available on the portal (referred to in S.146) as a valid service mode, without requiring a specific S.146 notification for this purpose.

IT Act & Designated Resource: The court held that the GST portal, accessible via unique login/password, qualifies as a "designated computer resource" for the taxpayer under Section 13 of the IT Act. Therefore, receipt legally occurs when the communication enters the portal, not when the taxpayer retrieves it.

Affirming Prior Views: The court concurred with the view in Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja (2022) that uploading an order to the portal amounts to 'tendering' it to the recipient.

Remand Despite Upholding Service Validity

Despite firmly establishing the validity of portal service, the court noted that in the Poomika group cases, the writ petitions were filed within the statutory appeal period while challenging the service itself.

Crucially, based on the consent of both the petitioners' counsel and the revenue counsel, and citing precedents where matters were remanded under similar circumstances ( M/s. K. Balakrishnan , Sree Manoj International ), the court decided to grant the petitioners a final opportunity.

Conditions of Remand

The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters remanded subject to: 1. Pre-deposit: M/s. MV Creations to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. M/s. Poomika Infra Developers group to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks. (Any amount already paid/recovered would be adjusted). 2. Procedure on Compliance: If the deposit is made, the original assessment orders will be treated as show-cause notices. Petitioners get four weeks thereafter to file objections with supporting documents. The authorities must then adjudicate afresh after providing a hearing. 3. Consequence of Non-Compliance: Failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated time will automatically restore the original impugned orders. 4. Lifting Attachments: Any bank account attachments or garnishee proceedings related to the disputed demand are to be lifted upon compliance with the deposit condition.

Court's Suggestion for Alerts

The court also suggested, as a measure of good practice and taxpayer facilitation, that the Commercial Taxes Department consider issuing internal instructions for assessing officers to send simultaneous SMS and email alerts to taxpayers whenever a notice/order is uploaded to the portal. However, it was clarified that this suggestion is purely administrative and does not affect the legal validity of service completed via portal upload as per Section 169.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court has unequivocally affirmed that serving GST notices and orders by uploading them to the Common Portal is a legally valid method under Section 169(1)(d). While upholding the law, the court, in this specific instance, exercised its discretion based on party consent and precedent to remand the cases for a fresh look, conditional upon a pre-deposit, thereby balancing statutory interpretation with principles of fair opportunity.