GST Notice Sent to Old Email is Invalid; HC Holds SCN Time-Barred.

Issue

Whether a Show Cause Notice (SCN) is considered legally served within the limitation period if it is sent to a taxpayer’s old, outdated email address, even when the department was aware of and had used the new authorized email for prior communications?

Facts

The petitioner changed their authorized email address on the GST portal from octantisgst@gmail.com to OSPLINDIAITX@fb.com on February 15, 2022.
The GST department used the new, correct email address for subsequent communications, including audit intimations and pre-SCN consultations.
For the Financial Year 2020-21, the last date for serving the SCN under Section 73 was November 27, 2024.
On this very last day, the department sent the SCN to the petitioner’s old, defunct email address (octantisgst@gmail.com).
The SCN was finally sent to the correct, authorized email address only on February 18, 2025.
The petitioner challenged the subsequent demand order, arguing that the SCN was served after the limitation period had expired and was therefore time-barred.

Decision

The High Court ruled decisively in favour of the assessee.
It held that service of a notice to an old, unauthorized email address does not constitute valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
The court noted that the department’s own prior correspondence to the new email address proved they were aware of the change.
The legal date of service was deemed to be February 18, 2025—the date the SCN was received at the correct, authorized email address.
Since this date was well past the limitation deadline of November 27, 2024, the SCN for FY 2020-21 was held to be prima facie time-barred, and the consequent proceedings were invalid.

Key Takeaways

Service to Authorized Email is Mandatory: Tax authorities have a legal obligation to serve notices to the current email address registered by the taxpayer on the GST portal.
Department’s Knowledge Matters: If the department has previously communicated with a taxpayer at their new email address, they are deemed to have knowledge of the change. They cannot then fall back on an old address to effect service, especially on the last day of limitation.
Date of Receipt is the Date of Service: In electronic communication, the crucial date for determining service is when the notice reaches the correct, designated address of the recipient, not when it is dispatched to an incorrect one.
Limitation is a Jurisdictional Bar: A notice served after the statutory limitation period has expired is a fatal jurisdictional defect. It is not a curable error, and it renders the entire proceeding void from the start.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Octantis Services (P.) Ltd.

Union of India

B. P. COLABAWALLA and AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO. 6043 OF 2025

OCTOBER 7, 2025

Darius Shroff, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kriti Kalyani, Yash Karunakaran and Richa Bharti, Advs. for the Petitioner. Ram Ochani, Sangeeta Yadav and Ashutosh Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The above Writ Petition is filed inter alia seeking to quash the impugned order dated 27th February 2025 issued by Respondent No.2. To put it in a nutshell, the primary grounds of challenge are (i) that the show cause notice [on the basis of which the impugned order is passed] has been served on the authorized registered email address of the Petitioner beyond the time prescribed under Section 73 (2) read with Section 73 (10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the CGST Act”) and these provisions being mandatory, no order could have been passed on the said Show Cause Notice; (ii) that the impugned order is passed without taking into consideration most of the submissions of the Petitioner, especially in relation to the fact that the Show Cause Notice itself was time barred, and therefore, no order could have been passed; (iii) that on merits, the 2^nd Respondent did not follow the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court, namely this Court, in the case of Vodafone Idea Limited v. Union of India GST 270/66 GSTL 63 (Bombay)/2022 SCC Online Bom 1485]. For all these reasons it is submitted that the impugned order has to be quashed and set aside.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the Respondents sought four weeks time to file an affidavit in reply to the above Writ Petition. Acceding to his request, we direct that the affidavit in reply, if any, shall be filed on or before 4^th November 2025 and a copy of the same shall be served on the advocates for the Petitioner.

3. If the Petitioner wants to file any affidavit in rejoinder, they are free to do so by 11^th November 2025 and serve a copy of the same on the advocates for the Revenue.

4. As far as ad-interim relief is concerned, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Prima facie, we find force in the argument canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner that the Show Cause Notice dated 30^th October 2024 was served on the registered email address of the Petitioner only on 18^th February 2025. In fact, it is not in dispute before us, that the Show Cause Notice for Financial Year 2020-2021 ought to have been served by 27^th November 2024. In the facts of the present case, for Financial Year 2020-21 the Show Cause Notice was served on 27^th November 2024, but according to the Petitioner, not on the authorized email address as reflected in the portal of the GST Authorities. In this regard Mr. Shroff brought to our attention Exhibit-S to the Petition which clearly reflects not only the authorized signatory, but also the authorized e-mail address which is OSPLINDIAITX@fb.com. However, on 27^th November 2024, the Show Cause Notice has been served on octantisgst@gmail.com.

5. In the Petition, it is specifically averred that at the time of applying for registration, octantisgst@gmail.com was given as the primary authorized signatory’s email id and the same was amended on the GST portal on 15^th February 2022. It has also been brought to our attention that all correspondence after 15^th February 2022 has also taken place between the Petitioner and the GST department on the email id OSPLINDIAITX@fb.com.

6. As an example, our attention was drawn to page 168 of the paper book which is an email dated 18^th April 2023 addressed by the GST Authorities to the Petitioner attaching the GST Audit Intimation Letter, as well as page 182 which is an e-mail dated 19^th January 2024 addressed by the GST Department to the Petitioner attaching the GST Audit Observation Letter in respect of the GST audit conducted on the Petitioner’s unit for the period from April 2020 to March 2022. Even the hearing fixed for the PreShow Cause Notice Consultation was served by the GST Department on the Petitioner via email dated 24^th April 2024 at the e-mail address OSPLINDIAITX@fb.com. This e-mail can be found at page 203 of the paper book.

7. All this material, atleast prima facie, goes to show that the GST Department was very well aware that the authorized e-mail address was changed from octantisgst@gmail.com to OSPLINDIAITX@fb.com from February 2022 onwards.

8. As mentioned earlier, the Show Cause Notice has been served on the authorized email address, namely, OSPLINDIAITX@fb.com only on 18^th February 2025. We may once again clarify that the Show Cause Notice was served on 27^th November 2024, but not on the authorized email address but on octantisgst@gmail.com. This being the case, atleast prima facie, we find that the Show Cause Notice was time barred.

9. This apart, we find that this argument was specifically raised before Respondent No.2. This argument, however, has not been considered by Respondent No.2, in the impugned order. Even the decision of this Court in Vodafone Idea Limited (supra) was cited before Respondent No.2 and we find no discussion on that decision in the impugned order.

10. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case for stay of the operation of the impugned order.

11. We must hasten to clarify that as far as the issue of Show Cause Notice being time barred is concerned, the same will apply to Financial Year 2020-2021. The same would not apply to Financial Year 2021-22 which was also the subject matter of the Show Cause Notice as well as the impugned order. However, not considering the arguments of the Petitioner especially in relation to the applicability of the judgment of Vodafone Idea Limited (supra), will apply to both financial years.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the Petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 27^th February 2025. Accordingly, there will be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) which reads thus:-

“d) For an interim order and injunction, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition:

i. Staying the operation of the Impugned Order dated 27 February 2025 (“Exhibit A”) issued by Respondent No.2;

ii. restraining the Respondents, their officers, servants and agents from taking any action in pursuance of or in implementation of the Impugned Order dated 27 February 2025 (“Exhibit A”) issued by Respondent No.2.”

13. This ad-interim order shall continue until further orders. We now place the Writ Petition on Board “for admission” on 20^th November 2025.

14. We make it clear to the Revenue that the reply shall be filed within the time stipulated in this order, failing which we will proceed on the basis that the Respondents have nothing to say in the matter. We had passed this direction for the simple reason that they were already given four weeks time to file an affidavit in reply as far back as on 4^th July 2025.

15. Stand over to 20^th November 2025 for admission.

16. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.