The Allahabad High Court has held that mere uploading of a notice or order on the GST Common Portal, particularly under the inconspicuous “View Additional Notices and Orders” section, cannot by itself constitute valid service where the taxpayer has neither acknowledged the communication nor filed a reply.

The bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot has suggested the introduction of: Prominent dashboard alerts for statutory communications; Mandatory pop-up notifications; OTP-based acknowledgement of important legal communications; Automated SMS alerts; and A separate dashboard section specifically dedicated to statutory notices and orders.

Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026

The petitioner/assessee approached the Allahabad High Court after its appeal against an assessment order dated 20 December 2025 was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation.

The appellate order proceeded on the basis that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period and that the appellate authority under Section 107 of the UPGST Act was not competent to condone the delay.

The petitioner, however, challenged the very basis on which limitation was said to have commenced. Its counsel argued that the relevant SCN had not been uploaded under the ordinary “Notices and Orders” section but under “Additional Notices and Orders.”

According to the petitioner, the GST portal’s structure makes it difficult for an ordinary taxpayer to discover statutory proceedings merely by accessing the portal.

The Court considered the difficulties highlighted by the petitioner and relied extensively upon the reasoning of the Division Bench in Laxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, CWP No. 27139 of 2025.

The Court noted that a taxpayer accessing the GST portal may have to navigate through multiple layers before discovering a statutory notice or order.

The judgment records that the taxpayer must move through Services → User Services → Notices and Orders → Additional Notices and Orders → View Additional Notices and Orders to locate certain communications. The Court described the process as resembling a “treasure hunt”, observing that the relevant tabs were not appropriately marked or labelled.

The Court found that such a cumbersome interface has serious legal consequences because failure to discover an SCN can prevent a taxpayer from responding to the proceedings, participating in a hearing or filing an appeal within limitation.

A major part of the judgment concerns Section 169 of the UPGST Act, 2017, which prescribes different methods for serving a decision, order, summons, notice or other communication.

The Court noted that Section 169(1) provides several modes of service, including: Direct tendering to the taxable person; Registered Post, Speed Post or courier; Communication to the registered email address; Making the communication available on the Common Portal; Publication in a newspaper; and Affixture in specified circumstances.

The Court further examined the deeming provisions contained in Sections 169(2) and 169(3).

The Court observed that while the statute contains a deeming fiction for certain modes of service, there is no corresponding deeming fiction for service through email under Section 169(1)(c) or through the Common Portal under Section 169(1)(d).

The Court then examined Section 146 of the UPGST Act, which concerns the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal.

The Court emphasized that its attention had not been drawn to any notification under Section 146 authorizing service of notices or orders under the GST Act merely by uploading them on www.gst.gov.in.

The Court concluded that uploading a notice or order on the Common Portal, by itself, is not an authorized mode of service under the statutory scheme examined in the judgment.

The department argued that taxpayers were sufficiently informed because an email was sent notifying them that the SCN or order had been uploaded on the portal.

The Court rejected this argument.

It distinguished between sending the actual notice/order by email and merely sending an email informing the taxpayer that the notice/order had been uploaded on the portal.

According to the Court, the latter is only an intimation that a document exists on the portal. It does not amount to communication of the notice/order itself through the registered email address contemplated under Section 169(1)(c).

Thus, the Revenue could not rely upon Section 169(1)(c) merely because an email alert had been generated regarding the uploading of a document.

The High Court reiterated the established principle that where a statute prescribes a particular manner for doing something, it must be done in that manner and not in another manner.

Applying that principle, the Court held that the statutory framework relating to service could not be bypassed by treating an unauthorized or inadequate method of portal uploading as sufficient service.

The Court made broader observations concerning the digital transformation of GST administration.

It recognized that the GST regime represents a shift from a predominantly paper-based tax administration towards a technology-driven compliance system. The Common Portal is intended to serve as the primary interface between taxpayers and the tax administration.

However, the Court emphasized that once a digital platform becomes the statutory interface through which taxpayers exercise and protect their legal rights, its accessibility and intelligibility acquire legal significance.

The Court held that a taxpayer’s statutory rights cannot be made dependent upon the taxpayer’s ability to navigate an obscure or unintuitive digital interface.

Allowing serious statutory consequences to follow merely because a notice or order has been placed in an inconspicuous location, without reasonable indication to the taxpayer, would undermine the purpose of a unified electronic compliance system.

The Court therefore emphasized that technology should facilitate communication and compliance rather than create procedural traps that defeat substantive remedies.

The judgment goes beyond resolving the individual dispute and calls upon the Department to reconsider the manner in which statutory communications are served.

The judgment also records the practical consequences of inadequate communication.

The Court observed that a large number of writ petitions are being filed by persons who were allegedly not made aware of SCNs or orders passed by GST authorities.

The resulting financial and penal liabilities create hardship for taxpayers and, at the same time, generate avoidable litigation arising from non-compliance with orders of which taxpayers may not have had effective knowledge.

The Court further noted that failure to receive knowledge of an SCN may prevent an assessee from participating in adjudication, while lack of knowledge of an order may prevent the assessee from filing an appeal within the statutory limitation period.

The Court also considered the Revenue’s reliance on Section 160(2) of the Act.

The Revenue argued that where a taxpayer has actually become aware of an SCN uploaded on the portal and has responded to it, the taxpayer cannot subsequently challenge the proceedings merely on the ground of defective service.

The Court found merit in this submission.

It held that where an SCN has been responded to and the proceedings have been contested, an order-in-original cannot subsequently be challenged merely because the SCN or order was uploaded on the Common Portal.

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: Allahabad High Court Quashes BNS Prosecution Over Delayed GST/TDS Deposit