Writ Petition Challenging Section 74 Order Dismissed as Uploading Hearing Notices on GST Portal Constitutes Valid Service
Writ Petition Challenging Section 74 Order Dismissed as Uploading Hearing Notices on GST Portal Constitutes Valid Service
Issue
Whether an assessment order passed under Section 74 and a consequential recovery notice can be quashed for denial of natural justice when notices were uploaded on the GST portal but unread due to internal partnership disputes, health issues, and counsel inaction.
Facts
-
The petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in the trading of petroleum products.
-
The Revenue issued assessment orders under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act and a consequential recovery notice under Section 79.
-
The petitioner failed to appear for hearings or respond to notices because portal credentials were entrusted to a lawyer who allegedly failed to act, combined with internal partner disputes and health issues.
-
The GST Department repeatedly uploaded notices for personal hearing on the petitioner’s GST portal profile in accordance with statutory procedures.
-
The petitioner did not invoke the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 within the prescribed limitation period and instead filed a writ petition under Article 226.
Decision
-
Uploading notices on the GST portal constitutes valid and sufficient service under Section 169 of the Act [Para 5].
-
The primary responsibility to monitor the GST portal rests on the taxpayer, and mere execution of a vakalatnama does not shift this burden or automatically impute knowledge to counsel [Para 5].
-
No procedural illegality was committed by the Department, and no evidence of counsel lapse was established [Para 5].
-
In the absence of jurisdictional errors and given the non-exhaustion of available statutory remedies within limitation, writ interference was declined and the petition was dismissed [Para 5].
Key Takeaways
-
Validity of Portal Service: Uploading show cause notices and hearing dates on the GST portal profile constitutes complete, legally binding service under Section 169.
-
Taxpayer Duty to Monitor: Business operators bear sole responsibility for regularly checking their GST portal accounts; internal partner disputes or delegation to legal counsel do not excuse non-compliance.
-
Non-Bypass of Limitation: High Courts will not exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to rescue taxpayers who allow the statutory appeal limitation window under Section 107 to lapse without valid justification.
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Petroliv Petroleums
v.
State Tax Officer
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
WP(C) NO. 24559 OF 2026
AUGUST 3, 2026
Reghunathan V.G. and Muhammad Ashraf Appattillath, Advs. for the Petitioner. Gireesh G, Sr. G.P. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of trading in petroleum products. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P16 order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, Ext.P19 order and all consequential proceedings including Ext.P20 arrear recovery notice dated 12.06.2026. According to the petitioner, the petitioner could not contest the matter properly, and thus, Ext.P16 order was issued without giving the petitioner proper opportunity for being heard. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner could not take necessary steps to challenge Ext.P16 order within the period specified in the statute.
2. According to the petitioner, initially the petitioner was having certain difficulties in managing the affairs due to certain fraudulent activities committed by one of its partners. Later, due to certain health issues of one of the partners, the petitioner firm had entrusted the matter relating to the assessment and other matters relating to same with its lawyer. It is pointed out that, as the petitioner had entrusted the matter with the lawyer, by providing him all the authorities, including the necessary credentials for accessing the web portal on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner was under the impression that, the lawyer will look after the same and take necessary steps. Email communications exchanged between the petitioner and the lawyer as evidenced by Exts.P23, P24 and P25 were also relied on, to substantiate the contentions of the petitioner that, the lawyer failed to take necessary steps to defend the petitioner, thereby hearing conducted while passing the impugned orders were not attended by any person and after passing the order the same was also, the petitioner not informed of the same.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. As far as the challenge raised against Exts.P16 and P19 are concerned, those are against the statutory assessment orders issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, against which, appellate remedy of filing appeals are available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. On perusal of the impugned orders, it is revealed that despite the fact that, repeated opportunities were granted to the petitioner for personal hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as the lawyer was entrusted with the matter, the petitioner was under the impression that, all the hearings would be attended by him and necessary steps would be taken to file appeal against the order, if any, passed against the petitioner as well. However, according to the petitioner, the lawyer failed to do so. Consequently, the hearing of assessment proceedings remained unattended and the passing of the order was also remained unnoticed. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking for an opportunity to challenge the orders referred to above and to the assessment finalized after considering the version of the petitioner as well.
5. However, on carefully going through the records, I find that, there is nothing to indicate the lapses on the part of the lawyer who represented the petitioner. Although a vakalathnama was executed in favour of the lawyer and he was entrusted with the case, as far as the proceedings with the CGST Act and the hearing based on the same are conducted, the notices for the same are served through the web portal created for the specific purpose by the Department and the access is provided to those notices through the profile of the petitioner/taxpayer. Therefore, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to track the said notice and to intimate the lawyer concerned about the hearing date, so as to enable him to conduct the hearing and to contest the matter. Merely because, a vakalath was executed in favour of the lawyer, the petitioner cannot expect that he would be knowing all the hearing dates in respect of which notices are issued by the statutory authorities, in the web portal accessible to the petitioner alone. With regard to the issuance of the final order also, the same course of action will have to be adopted and it cannot be presumed that, the lawyer must have known about the issuance of the order and steps should have been taken to file appeal against the same, without the instructions/intimation of the petitioner. As mentioned above, since communication and orders are uploaded in the web portal in the profile of the petitioner, it was the obligation of the petitioner to examine the same and give necessary intimation/instruction to the lawyer, to enable the him to give necessary advice as to the necessary steps to be taken in respect of the same. In this case, evidently, the petitioner did not intimate the lawyer about the hearing dates or the actions to be taken about the uploaded order. As far as the service of notices are concerned, once the same is uploaded in the web portal, that has to be treated as valid and sufficient for the purpose of the CGST Act.
In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reasons to entertain the reliefs sought by the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.