Service of Notices through GST Portal: Efficient Mechanism or Procedural Pitfall?

Introduction: A Game-Changer or a Hindrance?

Imagine checking your email, only to scroll past important notifications, with no indication of urgency. Now, consider if the most crucial notice-one that could have a serious impact on your business-was buried in your GST portal, a place you haven’t checked in days or weeks. This scenario is becoming increasingly common under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, where the service of notices has largely shifted to the GST portal.

While this transition aims to streamline communication between taxpayers and tax authorities, it raises several concerns. Is relying solely on the portal a practical approach, or does it place an unfair burden on taxpayers to constantly monitor it? Can a taxpayer be penalized for missing a notice they didn’t even know existed?

In this section, we’ll explore the nuances of the service of notices through the GST portal, the legal framework behind it, and the implications for taxpayers when the system fails to deliver effectively.

Understanding the Legal Framework: Section 169 of the CGST Act and Rule 142 of the CGST Rules

To understand the crux of the issue, we need to look at the legal framework governing the service of notices and orders under the GST Act.

Section 169 of the CGST Act: Multiple Modes of Service

The service of notices and orders is governed primarily by Section 169 of the CGST Act, which outlines various modes of service for notices, orders, summons, or any other communication issued under the GST Act or the rules made thereunder. Sub-section (1) lists several options for how these documents can be served to a taxpayer:

a) Direct Delivery or Messenger (including Courier): A notice can be delivered in person to the addressee, the taxable person, or their authorized representative (such as a manager, advocate, or tax practitioner with proper authority) or to any adult member of the taxable person’s family residing with them. Alternatively, the notice can be handed over to a person employed by the taxpayer in connection with their business.

b) Registered Post, Speed Post, or Courier: The notice can be sent through registered post, speed post, or courier with an acknowledgment due, directed to the taxable person or their authorized representative, at their last known place of business or residence.

c) Email Communication: The notice can be sent to the taxpayer’s email address, which is provided during registration or updated subsequently, ensuring a direct electronic method of communication.

d) Common Portal: Notices and communications can be made available on the GST portal,.

e) Newspaper Publication: If other methods are impractical, the notice may be published in a newspaper circulating in the area where the taxable person last resided, conducted business, or worked for gain.

f) Affixation: In case none of the above methods are feasible, the notice may be affixed in a conspicuous place at the taxpayer’s last known place of business or residence. If this too is not practical, the notice may be affixed to the notice board of the office of the concerned officer who passed the order, issued the summons, or notice.

Further sub-section (2) states that a notice shall deemed to be served if it is tendered, published or, affixed in such a manner as provided in above sub Section.

This section provides flexibility, enabling authorities to use a variety of methods to ensure that the taxpayer is notified. However, it also places significant responsibility on the taxpayer to stay informed through these different channels.

While the law provides these options, it’s clear that service via the GST portal is one of the prescribed methods. However, this leads to an important question: Does this shift to a portal-only method violate the broader principle of ensuring that notices are served effectively?

Rule 142 of the CGST Rules: Narrower Focus on Electronic Service

While Section 169 outlines multiple modes of service, Rule 142 of the CGST Rules specifically deals with the manner of serving notices and orders in cases of demand or assessment. Rule 142, in particular, prescribes the use of the GST portal as the primary method of service for notices and orders related to the demand or summary of tax payable (via forms like DRC-01,DRC-02, etc). According to this rule, once the notice is made available on the common portal, it is considered served.

The Problem: Reliance on the GST Portal Alone

The primary concern is that the GST portal has become the de facto method for serving notices, as mandated by Rule 142. However, this reliance raises several challenges:

1. Limited Monitoring: Many taxpayers, especially small businesses or those unfamiliar with digital platforms, don’t check their GST portal regularly. This lack of monitoring can lead to missed notices, resulting in missed deadlines, non-compliance, and severe financial consequences.

2. Inconsistent Use: The GST portal is not always seen as a reliable or consistent source for communication. With no built-in alerts, taxpayers may remain unaware of notices even after they’re uploaded.

3. Lack of Alternatives: Unlike other tax regimes (such as Income Tax), where alerts are sent when documents are uploaded, the GST system has no such mechanism, leading to the risk of missed notices.

Case Laws: A Mixed Bag for Taxpayers

Favorable Rulings for Taxpayers

There have been instances where the courts have ruled in favor of taxpayers regarding the service of notices via the GST portal, especially when taxpayers were unable to access the portal or were unaware of the notices being uploaded.

1. Sahul Hameed vs. The Commercial Tax Officer [2025(01)LCX0013]:The Madras High Court emphasized that the Rules under the GST Act are derived from the Statute and cannot override the modes of service prescribed by the Statute itself. The Court observed that when the Statute mandates the issuance of notices through various modes, including in person, by registered post, or by e-mail, the Rules cannot restrict the service to electronic methods alone. Therefore, the Court rejected the contention that the Rules should prevail over the Statute in this regard. In light of this, the Court is inclined to hold that Section 169 of the GST Act mandates notices to be served either in person, by registered post, or via registered e-mail, in that order. If any of these methods cannot be executed or are impractical, the State has the authority to publish the notices, summons, or orders through alternative means, such as on the portal or in a newspaper, as determined by the concerned officials.

As a result, the Court set aside the assessment orders challenged in these writ petitions. The petitioners were directed to file their responses to the show cause notices by 31.01.2025, following which the respondents must provide an opportunity for a hearing and pass appropriate orders based on the merits of the case.

2. M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited:[2025(04)LCX0198] The petitioners challenged the ex parte assessment orders passed by the respondents, alleging violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners argued that although the respondents had uploaded the notices on the common portal as per Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, they should have utilized other available modes of communication to ensure proper service.

The Madras High Court, after examining the case, acknowledged that while uploading notices on the portal is legally sufficient under Section 169(1)(d), it was not effective in securing the petitioners’ participation in the proceedings. Despite knowing that the mode adopted was not effectively reaching the petitioners, the respondents proceeded to pass ex parte assessment orders without attempting service through alternative modes like Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD).

The Court emphasized that when no response is received through the portal, the respondents are expected to send subsequent notices or reminders by RPAD or other prescribed methods. Resorting to alternative methods would have ensured better compliance with principles of natural justice and avoided unnecessary litigation. The Court found that the uploading of notices was sufficient but not effective, and that more proactive steps were required by the department.

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned ex parte assessment orders. However, it also noted that the petitioners were not entirely blameless, as they failed to monitor the GST portal, where notices were uploaded. Thus, fault was attributed to both sides-the respondents for not using more effective means of service, and the petitioners for not checking the portal.

Finally, the Court advised that in future cases, if service through the portal does not result in a response, the respondents must adopt alternative modes such as RPAD, which are recognized under Section 169, to ensure effective communication before proceeding to pass orders.

In conclusion, while service through the portal was legally sufficient, it was not effective, and the respondents were required to take additional steps to safeguard the principles of natural justice.

Unfavorable Rulings for Taxpayers

On the other hand, there have been rulings where courts have upheld the validity of notices served only through the GST portal, irrespective of whether the taxpayer was aware of the notice or not.

1. M/s. Poomika Infra Developers & Anr. v. M/s. MV Creations &Ors.:[2025(04)LCX0248] The Madras High Court held that service of notice or order by making it available in the common portal is valid under Section 169 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). It observed that the common portal is a designated computer resource for both Department as well as taxable person inasmuch as the taxable person is given a unique login ID and password to enable them to have access to the portal and hence, the common portal would constitute a “designated computer resource” for the taxable person as well. Since the GST portal is treated as a designated computer resource for taxpayers, service is deemed complete when the notice enters the portal, aligning with Section 13(2)(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

A Single Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed:

5.22. Keeping this in view, Section 13 of the IT Act, 2000, may have a bearing in determining the time and place of service under the GST regime. In terms of Section 13 of the IT Act, 2000, if the addressee i.e., taxable person in the present case had designated a computer resource, for the purpose of receiving electronic records, receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record enters the designated computer resource i.e., the common portal. If the electronic record is sent to a computer resource other than the designated computer resource, receipt occurs when the electronic record is retrieved by the addressee. If the taxable person has not designated a computer resource, receipt would occur when the electronic record enters the computer resource of the addressee. Having found common portal to be a “designated computer resource” of the taxable person as well, receipt would occur when it enters the common portal i.e., when it is made available in the common portal, in terms of clause (a) to sub section (2) to section 13 of the Act.

5.23. We have dealt with the question of validity of service inasmuch as service goes to the root of jurisdiction and if service is invalid the proceedings would be non est and the question of orders of adjudication being barred by limitation would arise. Service by making it available in the common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 169 of the GST Act. Service is complete when it enters the common portal i.e., when it is made available in the common portal. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in PandidoraiSethupathi Raja vs. Superintendent of Central Tax………….”

…………emphasis supplied

Thus, service of notices/orders by uploading them on the GST portal is a valid and complete mode of service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. Once uploaded, receipt is deemed to occur when the notice enters the taxpayer’s designated portal account, consistent with Section 13 of the IT Act. Hardships or failure to check the portal cannot invalidate the service or the proceedings.

2. New Grace Automech Products Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer [2023(01)LCX0201]: The writ petition challenges an order dated 07.02.2022, arguing that it was not served through the method outlined in Section 169(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner claimed the order should have been served via registered post, speed post, or courier.

However, Madras High court observed that Section 169 makes it clear that methods of service adumbrated therein are not conjunctive but are alternate methods of service. The reason is, the language in which sub-section (1) is couched makes it clear that service shall be by one of the methods adumbrated therein. To be noted as many as six methods (a) to (f) have been adumbrated therein. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as the court found no issue with the service of the order via the common portal, as per Section 169 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act.

3. PandidoraiSethupathi Raja vs. Superintendent of Central Tax [2022(11)LCX0100]: The Madras High Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the absence of the term “uploaded” in Section 169(2) implied that uploading an order on the common portal was not a valid mode of service. The Court found that making an order available on the GST portal effectively constituted “tendering” of that order to the recipient, as per the legal language of Section 169. The absence of the term “uploaded” was not seen as a deliberate exclusion by the legislature, and thus the Court held that uploading an order on the portal is a valid method of service.

The Court also noted a key difference with the Income Tax Act, which requires alerts to be sent to the taxpayer's registered email or mobile number when orders are uploaded on the portal. Under the GST Act, there is no such requirement for alerts because taxpayers are mandated to file returns on a monthly basis, and are thus expected to regularly monitor the portal for updates. The Court found this explanation acceptable and concluded that the uploading of orders on the portal is sufficient service under the GST Act.Ultimately, the Court upheld the service of the notice through the portal and dismissed the petitioner’s challenge.

This ruling reinforces the importance of monitoring the GST portal for notices and orders, as the service of notices via the portal is now considered legally valid, even in the absence of an alert system, which is available under other tax legislations like the Income Tax Act.

Recommendations or Reforms: Practical Solutions for Effective Communication

While the shift to service of notices via the GST portal offers some advantages in terms of digitalization and centralized access, it places a significant responsibility on taxpayers. Given the challenges and concerns raised, here are some practical solutions that could help streamline the system and ensure taxpayers are more actively engaged:

✓ Encouraging Regular Monitoring of the GST Portal: One of the most effective solutions lies in encouraging taxpayers to regularly monitor the GST portal. This could be achieved through clear guidelines and reminders about the importance of checking the portal frequently-especially when there are upcoming compliance deadlines. The introduction of a mandatory ‘notice check’ as part of the regular filing process could ensure that taxpayers are prompted to review the portal before submitting their returns.

✓ Mandatory SMS/Email Alerts upon Upload of Notices: While it’s crucial that taxpayers take responsibility for monitoring the GST portal, a better system of alerts could significantly improve the current setup. Mandatory SMS and email notifications could be sent whenever a new notice is uploaded. This would not only serve as a reminder but also help taxpayers stay aware of important updates without needing to constantly log into the portal.

Conclusion: The Need for a Balanced Approach

While the introduction of the GST portal has streamlined the process for serving notices, it is clear that this method has limitations, especially when taxpayers are not regularly checking the portal. The growing reliance on the portal as the primary mode of communication under Rule 142 poses risks, particularly for those businesses that are not technologically savvy or have not set up systems to monitor the portal consistently.

On the other hand, Section 169 of the CGST Act does provide multiple methods for service of notices, which include physical delivery and email. It is crucial that a balance is struck between electronic service via the portal and traditional communication methods like post or email to ensure that taxpayers are fully informed and do not face undue hardships.

As we have seen from recent case laws, the courts have taken differing views on the sufficiency of notice service via the portal. This inconsistency highlights the need for clearer guidance and perhaps even amendments to the law or rules to address these emerging issues. Taxpayers must be proactive in ensuring they are compliant, but at the same time, the authorities must ensure that notices are served through reliable and diverse channels to prevent unjust consequences.

Service via the GST portal is legally valid but raises concerns of fairness and practicality. Both taxpayers and authorities must exercise diligence to safeguard procedural rights. A careful balance is needed to avoid the erosion of natural justice in this digital era.

Disclaimer: The information given in this article is solely for purpose of understanding the law. It is completely based on the interpretation of the author and cannot be constituted as a legal advise, the author of this article and Lawcrux team is not responsible for any legal issues if arises on the basis of the interpretation given above.