The Orissa High Court has held that uploading notices and adjudication orders on the GST common portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. 

The bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman has ruled that a registered taxpayer cannot avoid statutory proceedings by claiming that it failed to regularly check the GST portal after the orders had been electronically uploaded. 

BUY NOW: Must Cite Cases Laws In GST Notices via Common Portal Related Disputes

The petitioner challenged two demand orders issued in Form GST DRC-07 dated 5 September 2022 and 10 August 2023, through which tax, interest, and penalty were determined under Section 74 of the CGST/OGST Act for the tax period 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2018. The petitioner also sought quashing of consequential recovery proceedings initiated by the State GST authorities. 

The company argued that it had never been served with the notices or adjudication orders and only became aware of the demand after its bank account was attached. According to the petitioner, the authorities should have adopted alternative methods of service, such as physical delivery or postal communication, instead of relying solely on electronic upload to the GST portal. 

The petitioner contended that it was denied an opportunity of hearing because it had no knowledge of the proceedings under Section 74. It further argued that the demand was determined on the basis of third-party data without its participation and that by the time it learnt of the proceedings, the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act had expired, leaving it without an effective alternative remedy. 

The State GST department opposed the writ petition, arguing that the GST Act specifically recognizes electronic upload on the common portal as one of the valid modes of service under Section 169.

The department submitted that the petitioner admitted that the notices had been uploaded on the GST portal. Questions relating to actual knowledge or receipt of notices involved disputed facts that should be examined by the appellate authority. The GST Act is a complete code prescribing a specific limitation period for appeals, which cannot be circumvented by invoking writ jurisdiction after expiry of the statutory limitation. 

The Division Bench observed that the petitioner’s own pleadings admitted that the notices had been uploaded on the GST portal and that the company had failed to verify the portal regularly.

The Court noted that a registered company carrying on business under the GST regime is expected to monitor the GST portal for statutory communications. Mere failure to check the portal cannot invalidate service effected in accordance with Section 169. 

The Bench further observed that the writ petition did not disclose the specific date on which the petitioner allegedly gained knowledge of the impugned orders, nor did it explain the delay in approaching the Court after the statutory appeal period had expired. 

The High Court relied upon its earlier decisions, particularly Rahul Spares Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST and Bikash Panigrahi v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, wherein it had already held that any one of the modes prescribed under Section 169—including making the order available on the common portal—is sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement of service.

The Court reiterated that once an order is uploaded on the GST portal, it is deemed to have been communicated to the taxpayer. It also referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. while discussing the statutory limitation framework under the GST law. 

The Court also noted that the adjudication records themselves indicated that the petitioner had earlier responded to departmental proceedings. The DRC-07 order recorded that after issuance of notices and reminders through the registered email address, the petitioner had submitted written explanations regarding discrepancies in turnover.

This, according to the Court, weakened the petitioner’s contention that it had no knowledge whatsoever of the proceedings. 

Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

The Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any legal ground for setting aside the GST demand orders, particularly when the statutory communications had been uploaded on the GST portal in accordance with Section 169 and the limitation period for statutory appeal had already expired. Accordingly, the writ petition and all pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.

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: GST Dept. Can’t Withhold Refund Prior To Filing of Appeal Before GSTAT: Orissa High Court