TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
A Notice on the Portal Can No Longer Be Treated as Invisible
The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court inM/s Sel Manufacturing Company Limited Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others - 2026 (7) TMI 907 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, deals with a question that has become extremely important in day-to-day GST administration. When a show-cause notice is uploaded to the GST portal, can the taxpayer later claim that there was no valid service because the notice was not physically served? The High Court answered this question against the taxpayer in the facts of the case.
The ruling is significant because GST is a portal-driven law. Returns are filed on the portal. Notices are issued through the portal. Orders are uploaded on the portal. Appeals are filed through the portal. In such a system, the argument that a notice must also be physically served cannot be accepted. At the same time, the judgment also sits within a larger line of cases in which High Courts have examined whether portal architecture, notice tabs, and communication design have actually enabled the taxpayer to receive a fair opportunity.
The Dispute Began With Non-Filing and Ended With Lost Remedies
SEL Manufacturing Company Limited was registered under GST and was engaged in manufacturing terry towels, yarns, knitted and processed fabrics and knitted garments. Various notices in Form GSTR-3A were issued from September 2023 to April 2024 for non-filing of GSTR-3B returns. The proceedings referred to an aggregate demand of Rs. 8,58,86,990/- towards tax, interest, and penalty.
The petitioner did not respond to the notices. Thereafter, a further show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024 was issued for the cancellation of GST registration. No reply was filed to that notice either. The registration was then cancelled by an order dated 24.04.2024 on the ground of non-filing of returns under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST/MPGST Act, 2017.
The company approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Its core grievance was that the notices were merely uploaded on the GST portal and were not served physically. It was argued that such uploading did not amount to sufficient service and that the company could not notice or follow up on the proceedings on the portal. The High Court did not accept this plea.
Digital Service Has Statutory Force Under GST
The foundation of the judgment is the statutory design of GST. Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 recognises different modes of service of notices, decisions, orders, summons and other communications. One of these modes is making the communication available on the common portal. This is crucial. Once the law itself recognises portal availability as a mode of service, a taxpayer cannot insist in every case that physical service is mandatory.
The Court therefore held that service by uploading on the GST portal is a valid mode of service. The mere absence of physical service does not invalidate the proceedings where the notice has been made available through a legally recognised digital channel. In a digital tax regime, a portal service is not a casual administrative act. It is part of the statutory communication framework.
This does not mean that every portal upload will always be immune from challenge. If the taxpayer can show a real defect in service, a serious portal failure, or a denial of reasonable opportunity, the Court may still examine the matter. But the starting point after this judgment is clear: portal service is not inferior. It has legal force because the statute confers it.
Portal Architecture Matters, but It Cannot Excuse Endless Inaction
The petitioner relied on a series of decisions in which taxpayers complained that notices were uploaded under confusing portal headings such as 'View Notices and Orders' and 'View Additional Notices and Orders'. The most important among them was M/s. East Coast Constructions and Industries Limited, Represented by its General Manager-Finance S. Suresh Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST) Nungambakkam - 2023 (10) TMI 146 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. In that case, the Madras High Court observed that communications were grouped under different headings and directed the authorities to address the practical difficulty posed by the portal layout.
The petitioner also relied upon M/s. Sabari Infra Private Limited, Represented by its General Manager-Finance Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai - 2023 (9) TMI 501 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . In Sabari Infra, the Madras High Court noted that the notice had been posted in the dashboard meant for 'Additional Notices and Orders' rather than the expected 'View Notices and Orders' section. The Court recognised that the portal's complex architecture had contributed to the taxpayer's failure to receive the notice.
These decisions reflect an important principle. Digital service must be effective, not merely technical. If a portal is designed in such a way that an ordinary taxpayer may reasonably miss a notice, courts may intervene to restore the opportunity. The object of service is not to create a trap. It is to inform the taxpayer of the case that must be answered.
However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court also referred to Murugesan Jayalakshmi Versus State Tax Officer - 2024 (2) TMI 715 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. In that case, the Madras High Court noted that the portal-related issue had been addressed and that the portal had been redesigned to place the 'View Notices' and 'View Additional Notices' tabs under a single heading. This later development weakened the petitioner's argument that earlier portal-tab confusion should automatically invalidate the present proceedings.
Earlier Relief for Portal Confusion Was Not a Permanent Escape Route
A central part of the judgment is the reference to M/s Light Group Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others - 2025 (5) TMI 258 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT. In that earlier Madhya Pradesh case, the taxpayer had complained that the notice was uploaded under the 'Additional Notices' category and was not separately communicated. While dealing with that issue, reference was made to M/s. East Coast Constructions and Industries Limited, Represented by its General Manager-Finance S. Suresh Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST) Nungambakkam - 2023 (10) TMI 146 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, M/s. Sabari Infra Private Limited, Represented by its General Manager-Finance Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai - 2023 (9) TMI 501 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , Murugesan Jayalakshmi Versus State Tax Officer - 2024 (2) TMI 715 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, M/s. Umang Realtech Private Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors. - 2024 (5) TMI 1186 - DELHI HIGH COURT , and Anhad Impex Through Its Partner & Anr. Versus Assistant Commissioner Ward 16 Zone 2 Delhi & Ors. - 2024 (2) TMI 1070 - DELHI HIGH COURT
In Ms. Light Group, relief was granted because the facts indicated that the taxpayer had missed the notice due to the portal-tab issue. The order was set aside, and the taxpayer was given an opportunity to respond. However, that decision did not lay down that the portal service is invalid in law. It merely recognised a factual difficulty arising from the portal arrangement and granted a fair opportunity in those facts.
In SEL Manufacturing, the position was different. The High Court treated the portal-tab issue as already addressed, particularly following the portal redesign. Therefore, the petitioner could not rely solely on earlier cases addressing portal complexity without demonstrating reasonable diligence or a continuing defect that rendered service ineffective. The distinction is important: courts may protect taxpayers from genuine communication failure, but such protection cannot serve as a licence to ignore the GST portal and to revive remedies after limitation has expired.
Natural Justice Requires Opportunity, Not Indefinite Reopening
The petitioner also invoked general principles of natural justice by referring to ORYX FISHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2010 (10) TMI 660 - Supreme Court , UMA NATH PANDEY Versus STATE OF UP. - 2009 (3) TMI 526 - Supreme Court, Lala Ram Swarup And Others Versus Shikar Chand And Another - 1965 (11) TMI 149 - Supreme Court, and KRANTI ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. Versus MASOOD AHMED KHAN - 2010 (9) TMI 886 - Supreme Court. These decisions broadly affirm that a person affected by an order must have a fair opportunity to respond and that quasi-judicial decisions must be reasoned and fair.
Oryx Fisheries is frequently relied upon for the proposition that a show cause notice must not be a mere formality or display a closed mind. Umanath Pandey and Ram Swarup represent the broader idea that a fair hearing is part of lawful decision-making. Kranti Associates strongly emphasises the importance of recording reasons, as they are the link between the material on record and the conclusion reached.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court did not disagree with these principles. It found them inapplicable on the facts. Once the notices were held to have been duly uploaded and served through a valid statutory mode, and once the petitioner had not responded, the action could not be treated as a violation of natural justice merely because the petitioner had not monitored the portal. Natural justice protects a real opportunity. It does not protect prolonged inaction after a legally recognised opportunity has been given.
Best Judgment Withdrawal Was a Matter for Reply or Appeal
The petitioner also referred to Comfort Shoe Components, Rep by its Proprietor Rafeeque Ahmed Versus Assistant Commissioner, Ambur, Vellore. - 2024 (1) TMI 281 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. That decision was relied upon to support the proposition that once valid returns are filed, a best-judgment assessment shall be deemed to be withdrawn in terms of Section 62(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The principle is important in Section 62 cases because a best judgment assessment for non-filers is not meant to survive once the taxpayer files a valid return within the statutorily permitted period and complies with the related requirements, including payment of tax, interest and applicable late fee.
However, in the present case, this contention was not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction. The High Court held that the petitioner ought to have raised this ground by filing a reply to the show cause notice, and that it could still be raised in statutory appeal. Since the petitioner had not participated at the proper stage and had not used the available remedies in time, the writ court was not inclined to examine the merits directly.
This part of the ruling is practically important. Even a legally arguable point may lose force if it is raised too late or before the wrong forum. GST law follows a structured sequence of notice, reply, hearing, order, appeal and further statutory remedy. A taxpayer who bypasses the earlier stages cannot ordinarily expect the writ court to examine the entire matter as if the statutory process had been followed.
Writ Jurisdiction Is Not a Cure for Missed Limitation
The High Court placed strong emphasis on the availability of statutory remedies. After the registration was cancelled, the petitioner had a remedy to seek revocation of the cancellation under the GST law. It also had the remedy of filing a statutory appeal against the cancellation order. The cancellation order had been uploaded on the portal, but no appeal was filed within the prescribed time.
The Court observed that Article 226 cannot ordinarily be invoked by a person who was not vigilant about its rights. This observation is especially relevant in GST litigation because the statute contains strict limitation periods and mandatory pre-deposit requirements for appeals. If a taxpayer allows the appeal period to expire and then approaches the High Court mainly to avoid limitation or pre-deposit, the writ petition may not be entertained.
This does not mean that writ jurisdiction is unavailable in GST matters. High Courts may still interfere where there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, a clear violation of natural justice, a constitutional challenge, or a case in which the statutory remedy is ineffective. However, SEL Manufacturing shows that where notices were validly served, statutory remedies were available, and the taxpayer remained inactive, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to reopen the matter.
The Practical Compliance Lesson Is Unmistakable
The judgment carries a direct message for businesses, consultants and internal tax teams. The GST portal must be monitored regularly. It is no longer safe to assume that a notice is ineffective merely because no physical letter, email or separate personal communication has been received. If a notice is uploaded on the portal in the manner recognised by law, limitation may start running, and legal consequences may follow.
At the same time, the judgment also reminds the Department that portal communication must remain accessible, intelligible and fairly traceable. The earlier decisions of the Madras and Delhi High Courts were not without significance. They drew attention to the practical difficulty caused by confusing portal tabs and complex portal architecture. The law may recognise digital service, but digital design should not defeat fair notice.
For professionals, the safest advice is to establish a fixed internal process for monitoring the GST portal. The GST dashboard should be checked at regular intervals. Notices, orders and additional notices should be downloaded and preserved. If a notice is received, a reply should be filed within the prescribed time. If an order is passed, the appeal period must be tracked immediately. Delay in a portal-driven system can become very costly.
Digital Service Is Valid, but Fairness Still Matters
SEL Manufacturing does not say that taxpayers have no protection in portal-service cases. It only makes that protection fact-dependent. Where portal architecture genuinely misleads a taxpayer, courts may still grant relief, as seen in East Coast Constructions, Sabari Infra, Umang Realtech, Anhad Impex and Ms. Light Group. But where the portal issue has been addressed, and the taxpayer remains inactive despite repeated notices, writ interference may be refused.
The balanced principle is clear. Service through the GST portal is valid because the statute recognises it. Natural justice still matters because service must give a fair opportunity. Statutory remedies also matter because writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for appeal, nor a route to avoid limitation or pre-deposit.
The larger message is simple. In GST, the portal is not merely a filing window; it is also a legal communication channel. A taxpayer must monitor it carefully because, once statutory remedies expire, writ jurisdiction may not restore the lost opportunity.
***