The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that uploading an adjudication order on the GST common portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the GST Act, dismissing a writ petition challenging a tax demand and recovery proceedings on the ground that no physical copy of the assessment order had been served. 

The bench of Justice C. Saravanan granted the taxpayer liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy by directing the appellate authority to entertain the appeal without raising the issue of limitation, subject to the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax. 

The petitioner challenged an assessment order and the consequential recovery notice. The petitioner contended that although it had participated in the assessment proceedings, the final order had never been physically communicated, rendering the proceedings illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice as well as Section 169 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act. 

Buy Now: 500+ CGST Notifications (2017–2025) | Clickable Index E-Magazine | Hyperlinked Original PDFs

The petitioner relied heavily on earlier judgments of the Madras High Court, particularly Sahulhameed v. Commercial Tax Officer and other subsequent decisions, wherein the Court had observed that authorities should serve notices and orders personally, by registered post, or through the registered email address before resorting to publication on the GST portal. According to the petitioner, the failure to physically serve the assessment order vitiated the entire adjudication process. 

The court examined the statutory framework governing service of notices under the GST law. The Court referred to Section 169 of the GST Act, which prescribes multiple permissible modes for serving decisions, orders, summons, notices, and other communications.

The judgment noted that Section 169(1) expressly provides that service may be effected by several alternative methods, including direct delivery, registered or speed post, email, and by making the communication available on the GST common portal. Unlike the petitioner’s contention that physical service was mandatory, the Court observed that the statute itself recognizes portal upload as one of the legally valid modes of service. 

The Court acknowledged its earlier decision in Sahulhameed, where assessment orders had been set aside with directions to provide fresh opportunities to taxpayers after proper service of show cause notices. However, Justice Saravanan distinguished the present case, emphasizing that the statutory language of Section 169 clearly includes making communications available on the common portal as a valid mode of service. 

The judgment also reproduced and compared Rule 52 of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 with Section 169 of the GST enactments, highlighting that the GST regime expressly incorporates electronic modes of service, including uploading communications on the common portal. The comparative statutory table formed a significant part of the Court’s analysis. 

The Court further relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 9764 of 2025). Referring to that judgment, Justice Saravanan observed that the Supreme Court had recognized the architecture of the GST system and held that the proper officer is legally required to issue the formal adjudication order in Form GST MOV-09 and upload its summary in Form GST DRC-07 on the GST portal.

This, according to the High Court, reinforces the statutory significance of electronic communication through the common portal under the GST framework. 

Having concluded that the assessment order had in fact been uploaded on the common portal, the Court held that the challenge to the assessment order and consequential recovery proceedings lacked merit and could not be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. 

Nevertheless, considering that the petitioner might have arguable grounds on the merits of the assessment, the Court exercised its discretion to permit the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

The petitioner undertook before the Court to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. Recording this undertaking, the Court directed that if such deposit is made and an appeal is filed within 30 days from receipt of the order, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits without rejecting it on the ground of limitation. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: GSTN Issues Advisory on Keeping on Hold the Proposed e-Way Bill Enhancements