Portal Service vs. Effective Communication: Madras High Court Mandates Multi-Mode Service

The Legal Issue

The central dispute is whether “Service of Notice” under Section 169 is satisfied by simply uploading a document to the GST portal, especially when a taxpayer fails to respond to multiple digital reminders. The Court evaluated if “portal-only” service constitutes a violation of Natural Justice when more effective physical modes are available.

Facts of the Case

The Process: The Competent Authority issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and several reminders by uploading them exclusively to the GST common portal.
The Default: The petitioner-assessee was unaware of these digital uploads and did not receive any physical copies of the notices. Consequently, no reply was filed.
The Order: The authority passed an Adjudication Order ex parte, confirming the tax demands and penalties proposed in the SCN.
The Challenge: The petitioner moved the High Court, arguing they were denied a fair opportunity to be heard because the service was not “effective.”

The Decision

The Madras High Court (2026) ruled in favour of the assessee, setting aside the order and remanding the case:

“Empty Formality” Doctrine: The Court acknowledged that while uploading to the portal is a “sufficient” service under the letter of the law, the tax officer must not treat it as a mere checkbox exercise. If there is no response to repeated portal notices, proceeding blindly is “fulfilling empty formalities.”
Duty to Apply Mind: The Court held that a lack of response should trigger a “duty to explore” other valid modes of service under Section 169(1), such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) or email.
Object of the GST Act: The primary goal of the Act is fair adjudication. The Court noted that failing to ensure the taxpayer is actually aware of the proceedings leads to a “multiplicity of litigations” and wastes judicial time.
Preference for RPAD: The Court specifically highlighted that RPAD should be the preferred fallback mode when portal service fails to elicit a response, as it provides tangible proof of delivery.
Outcome: The adjudication order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing with a direction to serve the notices effectively.

Key Takeaways

Check the “Additional Notices” Tab: Many taxpayers miss notices because they only check the main dashboard. This ruling confirms that “hiding” a notice in a portal tab without a follow-up via post or email can be challenged.
The Threshold for Writ: If you have received an ex parte order and can prove that the department only used the portal for communication (and you never replied), you have strong grounds to seek a Remand from the High Court.
Section 169 Hierarchy: Section 169 provides a menu of service modes (Hand delivery, Post, Email, Portal, Newspaper). This ruling suggests that these modes are complementary, not just alternatives to be used in isolation.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Tvl. Rajathi Silks

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P.(MD)No. 3576 of 2026
W.M.P(MD)No. 2917 of 2026

FEBRUARY 9, 2026

Rooban B for the Petitioner. R.Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.08.2024 passed by the respondent.

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

5. Further, he would submit that the respondent has already recovered 97% of the disputed tax amount from the petitioner. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matters back to the respondent.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.

9. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.

10. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.

11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has already recovered 97% of the disputed tax amount from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 26.08.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned order dated 26.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.

(ii)

The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii)

On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.