Service of notice or order by portal is a sufficient compliance under section 169 of the CGST Act

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Carry Co, Prop: Mr. Kajal Kumar Garai Versus Union of India & ors. - 2025 (6) TMI 1000 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held that service of order by uploading on the GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST/WBGST Act. The High Court also held that the appellate authority had wrongly rejected the appeal for delay without considering power of condonation in view of judicial precedent.

Facts:

Carry Co ('the Petitioner') challenged the order dated December 24, 2024 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act (“the GST Acts”), which rejected the Petitioner’s appeal as time-barred. The Petitioner contended that the impugned original order dated December 28, 2023 issued under Section 73 had not been served as per clauses (a) to (c) of Section 169(1) of the GST Acts and was merely uploaded on the portal under clause (d), which, according to the Petitioner, was not valid unless earlier clauses were exhausted. It was further submitted that the appellate authority had rejected the appeal without considering the condonation application appropriately.

The Respondents contended that upload on the portal under Section 169(1)(d) is a statutorily recognized and sufficient mode of service, and that there was no procedural lapse in service of the order.

Issue:

Whether service of an order by uploading on the GST portal without attempting service under clauses (a) to (c) of Section 169(1) of the GST Acts constitutes valid service?

Held:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held as under:

• Observed that, the show cause notice and the adjudication order under Section 73(9) were both uploaded on the portal, and the Petitioner had participated in the earlier proceedings, demonstrating awareness of the matter.
• Noted that, under Section 169(1) of the GST Acts, service can be effected through any of the modes listed in clauses (a) to (f), and not necessarily in a sequential manner. The only restriction applies to clause (f), which requires prior impracticability of other modes.
• Observed that, the Petitioner’s reliance on M/s. P.N. Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, A. Wiselam. Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer -2, Nagercoil - 2025 (2) TMI 462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, cannot be accepted citing the clear and unambiguous language of Section 169 of the GST Acts, which permits service by upload on the portal as a valid and sufficient method under clause (d).
• Held that, the Appellate authority erred in mechanically rejecting the appeal for being filed beyond the limitation period without considering the power of condonation in light of S.K. Chakraborty & Sons Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and accordingly, set aside the order dated December 24, 2024 rejecting the appeal.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])