Detention and release under UPGST Act: online portal service treated effective; appellate authority remits matter for fresh decision, relief conditional

Detention and release with penalty under the UPGST framework were addressed with findings that notices uploaded to the online portal constitute effective communication and support the appellate process; an ex parte appellate rejection for non-appearance is tested against proof of portal service, and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh decision. Relief granted is conditional upon adherence to the prescribed timeline and compliance with the terms of the order, and benefits will apply only if the petitioner complies with those conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order rejecting the appeal as ex parte without adequate proof of service of hearing notices (including notices uploaded on the electronic portal) is sustainable and whether the appellate order and the detention/penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017 can be maintained.

Analysis: The Court examined the record of service and the parties' competing stand on whether hearing dates/notices were communicated to the appellant through the portal. The respondents relied on entries showing information was loaded in the portal whereas the petitioner denied receipt. The Court referred to the practical difficulties and the comparative decision-law on disputed electronic service, and noted that the appellate authority's order does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the appellant was given effective notice of hearing. In view of the unresolved dispute regarding communication of hearing dates and the need to afford the appellant a real opportunity of hearing, the Court concluded that the appellate order rejecting the appeal in an ex parte manner could not be sustained and the matter required fresh consideration by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The appellate order dated 10.09.2025 rejecting the appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law, giving the petitioner opportunity to receive documents and be heard; the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the original detention/penalty order.

---