2026 (2) TMI 1326 - HC - GST

Service by Portal does not suffice; lack of statutory opportunity to be heard vitiates the order and warrants interim stay.

Uploading an adjudication order to an 'additional notices and orders' portal does not constitute valid service; effective service is required to trigger ... Validity of notifications issued u/s 168A in absence of force majeure - violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) - service by uploading on portal under 'Additional Notices and Orders' not proper service - interim stay on recovery and lifting of bank attachment - entertainment of writ challenging vires of notifications - HELD THAT:- Since the vires of the Notifications which form the basis of the order impugned has been challenged, the writ petition is entertained. In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sinhal Vs. State of West Bengal [2025 (7) TMI 1866 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] uploading of notice and orders on the portal under the “additional notices and orders tab”, is not construed to be proper service and that being so the petitioner’s belated approach can be said to be well explained. Furthermore, violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the said Act, 2017, vitally affects the validity of the order impugned. Accordingly, there shall be an interim order restraining the respondent GST Authorities from taking any step to recover any amount from the petitioner on the strength of the impugned adjudication order dated August 11, 2024 (page 40) till disposal of the writ petition. Since the respondent/GST Authorities have been restrained from recovering any amount on the basis of the said adjudication order, the respondent GST Authorities shall lift the attachment. Issues: (i) Whether uploading of notices and orders on the portal under the 'additional notices and orders' tab constitutes valid service; (ii) Whether the adjudication order supported by Notification No.56 of 2023-Central Tax and corresponding State notification, and passed without affording opportunity under Section 75(4), is vitiated and whether interim relief restraining recovery and lifting bank attachment should be granted.Issue (i): Whether uploading of notices and orders on the portal under the 'additional notices and orders' tab amounts to proper service of the adjudication order.Analysis: The Court considered precedent of the Division Bench in Ram Kumar Sinhal which holds that mere uploading under the stated portal is not equivalent to proper service. The petitioner's lack of knowledge of the impugned order until receipt of a recovery notice and the manner of publication were evaluated in light of the requirement of effective service to trigger limitation and enforcement steps.Conclusion: Uploading of the adjudication order on the portal under the 'additional notices and orders' tab does not constitute proper service.Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order premised on Notification No.56 of 2023-Central Tax and the corresponding State notification and passed without opportunity under Section 75(4) is vitiated and whether interim relief should issue.Analysis: The petitioner challenged the vires of the notifications under Section 168A and asserted denial of opportunity under Section 75(4). The Court found a strong arguable case on the challenge to service and on the procedural defect arising from non-compliance with Section 75(4). Given the substantial question on validity and the procedural infirmity affecting the order's legitimacy, the Court considered balance of convenience and potential prejudice, and observed that recovery steps flowing from the impugned order should be restrained pending disposal of the writ petition.Conclusion: The adjudication order is vitiated by the procedural defect of not affording opportunity under Section 75(4), and interim relief is warranted; the respondent authorities are restrained from recovering any amount under the impugned order and shall lift the bank attachment.Final Conclusion: The petitioner has made out a strong arguable case on service and procedural grounds, justifying interim protection against recovery and attachment until final adjudication of the writ petition.Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudication order affecting a taxpayer is not validly served (mere uploading under an 'additional notices and orders' portal is not proper service) and the order is passed without compliance with the statutory requirement to afford an opportunity under Section 75(4), the order is vitiated in procedure and interim relief restraining recovery and ancillary attachments is appropriate pending final determination.