The Bombay High Court has held that merely uploading the SCN on the GST portal in an incorrect section, without proper service, cannot be treated as valid compliance with statutory requirements.

The bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna has observed that Show Cause Notices though placed on the Portal were not uploaded on the “View Notices and Orders” window/portal as required. Besides this, it appears from the record that the assessee was not served with a copy of the Impugned Show Cause Notice. The assessee was thus deprived of a reasonable opportunity to deal with the Impugned Show Cause Notice.

The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of cobalt sulphate, manganese sulphate and nickel sulphate solutions.

Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026

The State GST authorities had initiated an investigation on 10 April 2023 regarding alleged violations under the CGST and MGST Acts for FY 2020-21. Subsequently, an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A (Part A) was issued on 6 March 2024, to which the company submitted its response in Part B on 18 May 2024.

Thereafter, the department issued a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 18 October 2024, which culminated in an order passed under Section 74(9) of the CGST/MGST Act on 20 December 2024 in Form GST DRC-07. 

The company attempted to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/MGST Act in July 2025. However, the GST portal did not permit filing because the limitation period had already expired.

Consequently, the company approached the Bombay High Court challenging both the Show Cause Notice and the adjudication order through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 

The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice was never effectively served.

According to the company, instead of placing the notice in the designated “View Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal, the department uploaded it under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab. As a result, the company remained unaware of the proceedings.

The petitioner further contended that no physical or effective service of the SCN was made; it was deprived of the opportunity to submit a reply; no personal hearing was granted before passing the adjudication order; and the proceedings were therefore in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. 

The State GST authorities argued that an earlier intimation under Form GST DRC-01A had already been issued to the taxpayer and that the subsequent Show Cause Notice was uploaded on the GST portal. According to the department, such upload constituted sufficient notice and the writ petition was not maintainable because an alternative statutory appellate remedy existed under Section 107 of the GST law. 

The Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna rejected the department’s stand.

The Court observed that although the Show Cause Notice had been uploaded on the GST portal, it was not uploaded in the prescribed “View Notices and Orders” window. Instead, it had been placed in another section of the portal, making it unlikely that the taxpayer would receive effective notice.

The Bench also found that no copy of the Show Cause Notice had otherwise been served upon the petitioner.

According to the Court, the taxpayer was therefore deprived of a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations before the assessment order was passed. 

The Court categorically held that there had been no effective service of the Show Cause Notice.

It observed that an incorrectly uploaded notice on the GST portal, coupled with the absence of any actual service, could not satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness.

The Court further noted that the failure to properly serve the notice vitiated the entire adjudication process because the taxpayer was denied a meaningful opportunity to defend itself. 

An important aspect of the judgment was the State’s admission that no personal hearing had been granted before the assessment order was passed.

The High Court held that denial of a hearing violated the well-established doctrine of audi alteram partem, one of the foundational principles of natural justice.

The Bench observed that the right to be heard is an essential component of fair adjudication and cannot be dispensed with merely because proceedings are conducted electronically. 

The Court referred to its earlier decision in T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, where it had held that a taxpayer cannot be blamed for not noticing a notice or order that was improperly displayed on the GST portal.

Following the same principle, the Court concluded that the petitioner could not be faulted for remaining unaware of the impugned Show Cause Notice. 

Allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court quashed the Show Cause Notice dated 18 October 2024; set aside the consequential assessment order dated 20 December 2024; remanded the matter to the competent GST authority for fresh adjudication; directed the department to provide the taxpayer an opportunity to file a reply and grant a personal hearing before passing a fresh reasoned order; and directed that if any fresh adverse order is passed, it shall remain in abeyance for two weeks to enable the taxpayer to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

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: Excess TDS on VRS Compensation Must Be Refunded by Income Tax Dept., Not Employer: Madras HC