Rejection of GST refund order set aside and remanded as portal’s single-reply limit violated principles of natural justice.

By | August 5, 2026
0 Comment

Rejection of GST refund order set aside and remanded as portal’s single-reply limit violated principles of natural justice.

Rejection of GST refund order set aside and remanded as portal’s single-reply limit violated principles of natural justice.

Issue

Whether the rejection of a GST refund application without allowing a supplementary reply—due to the GSTN Common Portal’s single-reply restriction—violates the principles of natural justice, rendering the rejection order liable to be set aside and remanded.

Facts

  • The petitioner filed an application for a GST refund under Section 54 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017.

  • Proceedings were conducted through the GSTN Common Portal, where a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued online, and the petitioner submitted an initial reply online.

  • The petitioner subsequently attempted to upload a supplementary reply online, but the GSTN Portal blocked the attempt due to a built-in “one-reply limit.”

  • The petitioner logged a Grievance Ticket documenting the genuine attempt to upload the additional submission.

  • The Adjudicating Authority issued an online order rejecting the GST refund application.

  • GSTN confirmed that the portal only allowed a single reply and suggested that supplementary replies should be filed offline.

  • The Revenue argued that the petitioner should exhaust alternative statutory remedies by filing an appeal.

Decision

  • The Court held that once the Revenue adopts the online portal as the primary mode of adjudication, insisting on a hybrid requirement of offline submission for additional replies is unacceptable.

  • The GSTN portal must provide a request-based window for submitting supplementary replies along with formal acknowledgments, as online filings generate prima facie evidence.

  • Since the Grievance Ticket clearly demonstrated a genuine attempt to file the reply, relegating the petitioner to an appellate remedy would be futile.

  • Consequently, the impugned rejection order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity to file an additional/supplementary reply offline.

Key Takeaways

  • Portal Limitations Cannot Defeat Natural Justice: Technical constraints of the GSTN portal, such as a single-reply restriction, cannot be used to deprive an assessee of a fair hearing or the right to file supplementary submissions.

  • Consistency in Procedure: When the Revenue conducts proceedings digitally, it cannot arbitrarily force assessees into offline/hybrid submissions without clear portal functionality or explicit procedural guidance.

  • Futility of Appellate Remedy: Where a fundamental procedural flaw and breach of natural justice originate from portal limitations documented by grievance logs, the court may bypass the statutory appeal requirement and remand the matter directly.

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Tejashva Tractors and Motors
v.
Union of India
Saumitra Dayal Singh and Vivek Saran, JJ.
WRIT TAX No. 2127 of 2026
MAY  26, 2026
Ravindra Kumar Rastogi, Mohd Sulaiman and Vishakha Dubey, Counsels for the Petitioner. Gopal Verma, Ramesh Chandra Shukla, ASGIs, Dhananjay Awasthi and Saumitra Singh, Counsels for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Vishakha Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Gopal Verma, leaned counsel for the GSTN authorities and Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09.03.2026 passed by respondent no.2, rejecting the petitioner’s refund application. Basic grievance exists that though the petitioner had filed a reply dated 28.02.2026, it was prevented from filing additional reply, on the Common Portal run and managed by the GSTN. In that circumstance, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of its case.
3. In such circumstances, we had passed the order dated 16.04.2026, requiring Sri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for the GSTN to obtain instructions as to why the petitioner was prevented from filing further replies.
4. Today, Sri Gopal Verma has produced written instructions. Copy of the same has been marked as ‘X’ and retained on record. By means of the written instructions, it has been informed, at present, the Common Portal allows for only one reply to the one show-cause notice. Since the petitioner had filed that reply on 28.02.2026, it remained prevented from filing any further reply through online mode. It has been further clarified by the GSTN through those written instructions, if the petitioner were to file any such or further reply, it could have filed such reply through offline mode during the course of personal hearing.
5. In such facts, Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the revenue would submit that to the extent, the petitioner did not file any other or further reply, there is no error in the order of respondent no.2. Whatever grievance the petitioner may have, may be pursued through appeal remedy.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is an admitted fact that normal medium of issuance of notices, filing of replies and service of adjudication orders is through online mode, using the Common Portal. Thus, even in the present case, the show-cause notice was issued through that mode. Its reply was filed by the petitioner through online mode. The order impugned was also issued through online mode.
7. In that view of the matter, since the central revenue authorities through the GSTN have established the medium to conduct proceedings under the Central GST Act, 2017 through online mode only, we find it difficult to accept the hybrid mode suggested by Sri Verma as the most desirable course to be adopted.
8. Once notice may be issued and replies may be entertained primarily through online mode, a mechanism must exist to allow for supplementary replies or further replies to be filed through online mode, as well.
9. Issuance of notices and orders, filing of replies provided through online mode also creates prima facie evidence of such documents having been issued or filed either by the revenue authorities or the noticee.
10. Once such online mode is described as the preferred mode of communication between the revenue authorities/noticee/tax-payers, it would be wholly in the fitness of things that the GSTN Portal may be worked to accommodate filing of additional/supplementary replies also through online mode.
11. We understand the difficulty in making an open provision to file additional replies. If no check is placed on the additional replies to be filed as may allow an assessee to file reply at any time, that itself may create other hindrances in the processing of replies and the conduct of the proceedings in which such replies are required or called. Therefore, wherever a noticee may wish to file an additional reply after having filed the first reply, the GSTN Portal may be refined to provide for a request button that may enable the noticee to make a request to the issuing authority to be permitted to file additional/supplementary reply. Making of such request may be accompanied with generation of an appropriate acknowledgement as may allow for evidence to arise of that request made, together with a date and time stamp as is being done, in other cases.
12. Only after such request is accepted by the issuing authority, the noticee may be enabled to file an additional or supplementary reply, through online mode. Needless to add, such request may be permitted to be raised only till next date fixed in the proceedings.
13. While that general direction may take time to implement, in the meanwhile, to the extent, the petitioner appears to have raised the request by way of raising the Grievance Ticket No. G-202603063520731, there is no reason to doubt that the petitioner did attempt to file an additional/supplementary reply. For reason of the petitioner being prevented from filing all such reply, we find no useful purpose may be served in relegating the petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy of appeal, when reply to the show-cause notice was not complete according to the petitioner itself.
14. Accordingly, the order dated 09.03.2026 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order after allowing the petitioner one opportunity to file additional/supplementary reply, through offline mode. Subject to such reply being filed within a period of 15 days from today, the proceedings may be heard and concluded within a period of one month therefrom.
15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the GSTN authorities by Sri Gopal Verma for necessary consideration and compliance.
16. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition stands disposed of.