Mere Upload Of Notices Under “Additional Notices & Orders” Tab On GST Portal Doesn’t Ensure Effective Service: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that mere upload of notices under the “Additional Notices & Orders” tab on the GST portal does not ensure effective service, especially when adverse consequences are contemplated. The bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai has set aside a GST adjudication order after finding that the authorities failed to properly serve show-cause notices and did not grant a mandatory opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse order. The petitioners/assessee had challenged an order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, by which they were saddled with tax, interest and penalty. They argued that the entire proceedings suffered from a fundamental flaw: all notices, including the show-cause notice and the impugned order, had been uploaded on the GST portal only under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, instead of the main “Notices and Orders” tab. This, they contended, prevented them from becoming aware of the proceedings. It was only upon receiving a recovery notice on October 17, 2025 via email that they searched the portal and located the earlier notices. The department argued that service by portal upload is a statutorily recognised mode of communication and that the petitioners could not fault the authorities merely for the placement of notices under a different tab. However, the Court rejected this contention, emphasising that the notices must be uploaded in a manner that ensures their accessibility and visibility to the taxpayer. Uploading notices under a tab that the taxpayer is not ordinarily expected to monitor cannot be treated as due service. The Court observed that such uploading under the additional tab cannot be treated as proper service, particularly when the notices contemplated adverse action. The Court also noted that the petitioners were not granted any personal hearing before the adjudication order was passed. Under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, a personal hearing is mandatory whenever an adverse order is proposed. In its analysis, the Court relied on earlier decisions of Co-ordinate Benches in Sankar Agarwala v. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeal) and Parakh Consulting LLP v. State of West Bengal. Those judgments had held that placing notices only under the “Additional Notices” tab does not amount to valid communication and vitiates the proceedings on the ground of violation of natural justice. The Court also referred to the Division Bench ruling in Ram Kumar Sinhal v. State of West Bengal, which had taken a similar view. Having found that the petitioners had no real opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice, the Court concluded that the adjudication order suffered from a serious procedural defect. Although an appellate remedy is available under Section 107 of the GST Act, the Court declined to relegate the petitioners to the appellate authority, observing that the defect lay at the foundational stage of the proceedings. Sending the petitioners to appeal would result in a loss of a forum and would not cure the violation of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court set aside the adjudication order. The petitioners have been granted three weeks to file a reply to the original show-cause notice dated January 20, 2023. The adjudicating authority has been directed to consider the reply, grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. The Court also clarified that if the petitioners fail to file their reply within the stipulated three weeks, the earlier adjudication order will automatically revive. Further, since the proceedings were originally initiated within the limitation period, the petitioners will not be permitted to raise a limitation defence unless such a defence was available at the time the show-cause notice was first issued. Case Details Case Title: M/s. Birla Brothers Private Limited and another Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue Case No.: WPA 26252 of 2025 Date: 24.11.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Rahul Dharuka Counsel For Respondent: S.K. Dutta Click Here To Read Order Read More: Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback: 23 To 29 November 2025

Mere Upload Of Notices Under “Additional Notices & Orders” Tab On GST Portal Doesn’t Ensure Effective Service: Calcutta HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

Lack of Reasoned Order by ICAI Board: Delhi HC Quashes Closure of Professional Misconduct Complaint

No Evidence of Pilferage Under Section 45 of Customs Act: CESTAT Quashes Duty Demand on CONCOR

Classification of EPS-ECU as Automobile Part Upholds; CESTAT Dismisses 196 Appeals by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India

Delhi High Court Quashes Rs. 96 Crore Reassessment Citing ‘Change of Opinion’, Limitation Bar

More like this

Lack of Reasoned Order by ICAI Board: Delhi HC Quashes Closure of Professional Misconduct Complaint

No Evidence of Pilferage Under Section 45 of Customs Act: CESTAT Quashes Duty Demand on CONCOR

Classification of EPS-ECU as Automobile Part Upholds; CESTAT Dismisses 196 Appeals by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India

About us

Company

Categories