The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that taxpayers cannot invoke the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 merely to bypass statutory appellate remedies after allowing the limitation period to lapse and reaffirmed that uploading notices on the GST portal constitutes a valid mode of service under the GST law.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed the petition challenging multiple show cause notices issued in Form GSTR-3A, an aggregate tax demand of ₹8.58 crore along with interest and penalty, and the subsequent cancellation of the company’s GST registration for failure to file statutory returns.

The petitioner/assessee listed textile manufacturer engaged in the production of terry towels, yarns, fabrics and garments, contended that although several show cause notices had been uploaded on the GST portal between September 2023 and April 2024, the authorities never served them physically. According to the company, the absence of physical service prevented it from responding to the notices, ultimately resulting in cancellation of its GST registration on April 24, 2024, and substantial tax demands.

Buy Now: Service Tax Judgement E-Compilation : June 2026

The petitioner argued that merely uploading notices on the GST portal could not amount to adequate service and that the proceedings violated the principles of natural justice.

Rejecting the company’s contention, the High Court observed that the GST statute expressly recognizes service through the GST portal as one of the legally valid modes of communication.

The Bench held that once notices are duly uploaded in accordance with the statutory provisions, the taxpayer cannot insist that physical service is mandatory. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the argument that the notices were invalid merely because they had not been delivered physically.

The petitioner relied upon earlier decisions of the Madhya Pradesh, Madras and Delhi High Courts concerning notices uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, which had resulted in taxpayers missing critical communications.

However, the Division Bench noted that those decisions were rendered in distinguishable factual circumstances where the architecture of the GST portal itself contributed to the taxpayer’s inability to notice the proceedings. The Court observed that the present case did not warrant similar relief because the petitioner remained inactive despite the notices having been validly uploaded and available on the portal.

The Court further emphasized that after cancellation of the GST registration, the company had adequate statutory remedies available under the CGST Act. It could have applied for restoration of registration or preferred a statutory appeal against the cancellation order. Instead, it failed to pursue either remedy within the prescribed time.

The Bench observed that the petitioner also neglected to respond to the show cause notices despite repeated opportunities and approached the High Court only after the statutory limitation for filing an appeal had expired.

While dismissing the petition, the High Court reiterated the settled principle that writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked when an effective statutory appellate mechanism exists.

The Court observed that the GST legislation provides a complete appellate framework culminating before the GST Appellate Tribunal, and taxpayers are expected to pursue those remedies instead of directly approaching the High Court. It also noted that entertaining such petitions would permit assessees to circumvent statutory requirements, including limitation periods and mandatory pre-deposit obligations.

The petitioner also argued that the proceedings violated the principles of natural justice, relying upon several Supreme Court precedents.

The Division Bench rejected this contention, holding that once it had concluded that the show cause notices were validly served through the GST portal and the petitioner failed to respond, no violation of natural justice could be established. Any legal grounds on the merits of the assessment, the Court said, ought to be raised before the statutory appellate authority rather than in writ proceedings.

Concluding that the petitioner had failed to exercise due diligence in protecting its legal rights and had not availed the statutory remedies provided under the GST law, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the company to pursue such remedies as may be available in accordance with law.

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: Construction of Govt. Staff Quarters and Public Infrastructure Not Taxable Under Service Tax: CESTAT