Since UPGST Authorities unable to inform when notice sent by GSTN Portal may have been retrieved or downloaded, no inference may be drawn as to the actual date and time of such service.
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that to the extent there is no acknowledgement generated and to the extent the GSTN and the revenue authorities are unaware and therefore unable to inform when any notice or order dispatched through GSTN Portal may have been retrieved or downloaded by the addressee, no inference may be drawn as to the actual date and time of such service.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4966 (2025) (12) abcaus.in HC
Important Case Laws relied upon by Parties:
M/s Riya Construction vs State of U.P. & 3 Ors
Batch of petitions were filed by different petitioners assailing individual Adjudication Orders passed against them, under the UPGST Act, 2017 (State Act) and the CGST Act, 2017 (the Central Act).
In all cases, Adjudication Orders and the Show Cause Notices preceding those orders and the impugned orders were stated to have been served on the individual petitioners by the revenue authorities – by uploading and thus making them available on the Common Portal, designed and managed by GSTN.
The question before the Hon’ble High Court was if the orders impugned in the individual writ petitions had been ‘communicated’ to the individual petitioners, within the meaning of that word used in Section 107 of the State/Central Act?
The communication is important in for determining the period of limitation of three months to file such appeal.
The word ‘communicated’ is not defined under the State/Central Act. However, Petitioners referred to Section 169 of those Acts as also Sections 4, 12 and 13 of the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act).
Thus, the issue to be decided was if a Show Cause Notice or other notice or order passed either under the State Act or the Central Act may be found served or may be found ‘deemed served’ in terms of Section 169 of the State/Central Act, on such person, upon it being uploaded and thus made available on the Common Portal of the GSTN, or on dispatch of electronic mail at the email address provided by the affected person, at the time of obtaining registration? In that context, the effect of sending an SMS alert with respect to issuance of such notice or order, may also be examined.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that in the case of Riya Construction it held that show cause notices and adjudication orders are being served only through online mode. In that, many times alerts are not being sent to the noticees and in any case the notices and orders are often not readily visible on the GSTN Portal.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that following the decision in M/s Riya Construction, more than 2300 cases had been disposed. However, there is no end to the litigation on this count for the stand taken by the State revenue authorities – that they propose to serve the Show Cause Notices and the Adjudication Orders through electronic mode only, and not through physical mode, the fact circumstance giving rise to such litigation may never end at least in the proceedings arising at the hands of the State revenue authorities.
The High Court observed that While the Central revenue authorities have chosen to move on to electronic mode, without abandoning service through offline mode, the State revenue authorities have charted a different course by abandoning service through physical mode, completely, except where registration itself may have been cancelled. Thus, the revenue authorities (Central and the State) are divided in their opinion – as to the most desirable mode of service of notice and the orders on the assessees/taxpayers.
The Hon’ble High Court held that it is unacceptable in law to infer that a notice or order uploaded on the GSTN Common Portal may be equated with the word ‘tendering’ or ‘publishing’ and therefore, be deemed to have been served though no deeming fiction in law has been created by the legislature to reach that conclusion, for the purpose of Section 107 of the State/Central Acts.
The Hon’ble High Court remarked that GSTN has taken a obstinate stand, demonstrating extreme reluctance at the first stage itself, to take any positive criticism of the working of its Common Portal, and the urgent need to improve it – to make it more user friendly and enable the taxpayers to make compliances and pay their revenues within time.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that in some proceedings drawn by authorities under the Central Act, notices and orders may be issued through physical mode also, while in another set of proceedings (against the same class of persons), drawn by the State authorities, notices and orders may be issued only through electronic mode, is not desirable. It creates confusion by bringing in duality and therefore uncertainty of procedures being followed, to implement a single substantive law, leading to doubts and conflicts that have given rise to the present wholly avoidable litigation.
The Hon’ble High Court held that wherever an assessee files an appeal declaring that it is within time from the date of actual ‘communication’ of the order, a presumption may arise in favour of the assessee on the strength of such declaration. The burden to prove otherwise, may lie on the revenue – to establish that actual ‘communication’ of the contents of the Show Cause Notice or adjudication order had been made prior in time, as may have allowed the limitation to start running from such prior date. Failing that, the limitation to file appeal may be computed with reference to the date that may be disclosed by the individual assessee, in each appeal.
All writ petitions were allowed and Individual Adjudication Orders were set aside, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed demand.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
Mere CBDT Instructions cannot absolve individuals of their obligation to explain the source and nature of their gold holdings, even…
Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations December 2026 ICSI has invited interested members to enroll as General Observers for…
ITAT answers some important and inter-related issues relating to deduction u/s 80IA In a recent judgment, ITAT has dealt with…
Carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return, it is only the set off in subsequent year…
Where sales are duly recorded in books and VAT returns, to treat it bogus sales, AO must bringing cogent adverse…
Expenses to celebrate Diwali with staff creates a goodwill and, therefore amounts to expenses incurred for the purpose of business…