GST Officers must explore alternate service modes u/s 169, beyond portal upload or portal reminders if no response to SCN is made after portal upload

The Hon’ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of Tvl. Enfive Systems Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and State Tax Officer Dindigul - 2025 (12) TMI 1912 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held that while uploading notices on GST portal constitutes sufficient service. However, where no response received despite repeated reminders, the Officer must apply mind and explore other modes under Section 169(1) preferably RPAD for effective service failing which ex parte assessment order without personal hearing violates principles natural justice.

​Facts:

Tvl. Enfive Systems Private Limited (“the Petitioner”) was unaware of show cause notice and communications uploaded by the Respondent on GST common portal, failed to file reply within time, and expressed willingness to pay 25% disputed tax for opportunity to present case.

​The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & The State Tax Officer, Dindigul (Rural) Assessment Circle (“the Respondents”) uploaded all notices/communications including show cause notice (SCN) on GST Online Portal. The had sent repeated reminders  via the portal, despite no response, passed impugned assessment order dated March 21, 2024 confirming proposals in SCN without providing personal hearing to Petitioner.

​Aggrieved by impugned ex parte assessment order dated March 21, 2024 passed without personal hearing despite unaware of portal-uploaded SCN/reminders, the Petitioner approached the Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for writ of certiorari to quash the order.

Issue:

Whether ex parte assessment order passed without personal hearing, merely uploading SCN/reminders on GST portal despite constitutes effective service ?

​Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tvl. Enfive Systems Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Chennai and State Tax Officer Dindigul - 2025 (12) TMI 1912 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held as under:

• Noted that, the Petitioner was unaware of portal-uploaded notices and thus failed to reply to the same. The Respondents uploaded notices on GST portal but admitted no personal hearing provided.
• ​Held that, no doubt sending notice by uploading in portal is sufficient service, but Officer sending repeated reminders despite no response to SCN, should have applied mind/explored other modes under Section 169 GST Act valid for service. Otherwise these are not effective service but fulfilling empty formalities, and by merely passing ex parte order fulfills empty formalities paving multiplicity of litigations wasting Officer/Appellate/Tribunal/Court time.
• ​Held that, when no response from taxpayer to notice sent through particular mode, Officer issuing notices should strictly explore possibilities of other modes under Section 169(1) preferably RPAD achieving the object and intent of the GST Act.
• ​Considering that the Petitioner willing to pay 25% disputed tax, set aside impugned order dated March 21, 2024 remanding for fresh consideration subject to Petitioner paying 25% within 4 weeks.

​Our Comments:

The Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of M/s Binod Traders Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, The State of Bihar, The Commissioner of State Tax cum Secretary, The Additional Commissioner, The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, The Joint Commissioner, State Tax and The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Siwan Circle, Siwan - 2025 (6) TMI 251 - PATNA HIGH COURT held that uploading a summary show cause notice on the GST portal alone does not amount to valid service under Section 169 of the BGST Act and set aside the ex parte assessment order passed in violation of Section 75(4) for lack of opportunity of hearing.

The Hon’ble Kerala HC in T.K NAVAS Versus COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES DEPARTMENT, KERALA, JOINT COMMISSIONER, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT - 2025 (6) TMI 999 - KERALA HIGH COURT dismissed writ challenging order passed under Section 73 order for lack of proper notice, holding service by making notice available on common portal sufficient u/s 169(1)(d) CGST/SGST Act. Since the statute recognizes any one of the modes as referred to in Section169(1) as the proper service of notice, the effective service through any one of the modes would amount to sufficient notice for initiating or continuing proceedings under the Act.

These judgments introduce interpretational ambiguity regarding Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) that governs “Service of notice in certain circumstances”.  The section in clauses S.169(1)(a) – (e), provides multiple alternative methods for service, including portal upload, without ranking them hierarchically. S.169(1)(d) provides for “by making it available on the common portal” also as a valid means of service. However, this division bench ruling has held that the uploading of the SCN in the portal alone does not amount to sufficient service, and had insisted on additional modes beyond portal upload. This creates uncertainty for both taxpayers and tax authorities. It also raises concerns regarding administrative efficacy where notices are routinely served via the GST portal. A conclusive clarification, either through legislative amendment or a judicial pronouncement, is essential to harmonize procedural requirements with digital infrastructure realities under GST.

​Relevant Provision:

Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017

“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:-

1. by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or
2. by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or
3. by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or
4. by making it available on the common portal; or
5. by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or
6. if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.

(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1).

(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved.”

Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017

“75. General provisions relating to determination of tax.-

(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.

(5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings.”

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])