Tax Notices Sent to an Accountant’s Registered Contact Details

Tax Notices Sent to an Accountant’s Registered Contact Details Constitute Valid Communication and Binding Service

Issue

Whether a statutory Show Cause Notice uploaded on the GST portal and communicated via the registered email and mobile number can be deemed invalid or violative of natural justice on the sole plea that the contact details belonged to the assessee’s accountant and the assessee was personally unaware of the proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner is a registered dealer whose tax assessment for the period 2021-22 was finalized by an order dated December 23, 2025, which imposed tax, interest, and a penalty.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order, alleging that the Revenue failed to provide a fair prior opportunity of being heard.
The Revenue established that a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 20, 2025, was successfully uploaded on the official GST portal and automatically transmitted to the registered email ID and mobile number.
The department subsequently issued reminders that fixed fresh extension dates for filing a written reply and appearing for a personal hearing.
The petitioner failed to submit any response and did not appear for the scheduled personal hearing.
In its defense, the petitioner pleaded complete unawareness of the notices, arguing that the registered contact details on the portal belonged to its accountant and not to the proprietor directly.

Decision

Held, that the Show Cause Notice and reminders were duly and legally communicated to the petitioner in full compliance with the law.
Held, that Section 169 explicitly recognizes and validates the service of notices and communications when sent to the electronic address, email, and mobile number provided during registration.
Held, that the petitioner’s argument does not constitute a case of non-receipt or system failure, but merely a personal plea that the accountant’s credentials were used.
Held, that an assessee exercises absolute discretion when entering contact information on the portal, and the Revenue cannot be held responsible for the internal handling of those accounts.
Held, that a strict legal duty rests upon the taxpayer to promptly update and intimate any changes regarding their official mobile numbers, email IDs, or digital credentials.
Held, that since the department provided multiple clear opportunities for a reply and a personal hearing which were systematically ignored, the challenge to the service fails and the petition is dismissed.

Key Takeaways

Legal Sufficiency of Digital Service: Under Section 169 of the CGST Act, uploading a notice to the portal and sending automated alerts to the registered credentials fulfills all jurisdictional service requirements.
Principal’s Liability for Agent’s Contacts: An assessee is fully bound by communications sent to the email and phone number they voluntarily designated on the portal, even if those details belong to a third-party accountant or consultant.
Onus to Update Portal Data: Maintaining accurate, accessible, and live communication channels on the GST network is the sole statutory responsibility of the taxpayer, not the tax administration.
No Shielding Behind Ignorance: Claiming personal ignorance of automated system alerts does not amount to a violation of natural justice if the department actively provided multiple opportunities to be heard.

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Sarthak Earthmovers and Builders

State of U.P^*

Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai, JJ.

WRIT TAX No. 598 of 2026

MAY 8, 2026

Amit Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner. Rajesh Tiwari, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Member.

ORDER

Amitabh Kumar Rai, J. – Heard Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the assessment order dated 23.12.2025 passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow thereby imposing tax, interest and penalty on the petitioner totaling to Rs. 29,84,975/-.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the present assessment pertains to financial year 2021-22, the petitioner had filed his regular returns through his Accountant and the grievance raised in the present writ petition is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner prior to finalization of the assessment for the financial year 2021-22. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that provisions of Section 75 (4) are mandatory in nature and such an assessment cannot be finalized without giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. A short counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.09.2025 on a common portal and automatically the same message was sent on his registered e-mail address and mobile number provided at the time of registration. In the said show cause notice, 20.10.2025 was the date fixed for filing of the reply and 27.10.2025 was the date fixed for personal hearing.

5. Despite communication of the aforesaid, the petitioner did not file his reply nor did he appear before the Assessing Officer on the date fixed for personal hearing. On 07.10.2025, the petitioner did not appear and therefore a reminder notice was sent on 17.11.2025 on the common portal fixing 14.11.2025 for filing of reply and 18.11.2025 for personal hearing. Despite the reminder being sent to the petitioner, neither did he appear nor did he file his reply and subsequently by means of impugned order dated 23.12.2025, the assessment order was passed.

6. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that he was not aware of the communication made to him by the Assessing Authority on the two occasions, therefore he could not put in appearance. The second ground raised by him is that even as per the versions of the respondent, the date fixed in the present writ for the second time was 14.11.2025 for reply and 18.11.2025 for personal hearing but the authority has passed an order on 23.12.2025 on the date which the hearing was not fixed nor opportunity was given.

7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, we have considered the case of the petitioner. It is noticed that with regard to the opportunity being granted to the petitioner, we find that he was duly communicated the notice in terms of provisions of Section 169 of U.P. G.S.T. Act where there is a clear provision of communicating it through the registered e-mail as well as on the mobile number provided by the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not receive either of these two communications but his case is that the e-mail address and the mobile of the accountant was provided. It is noticed that it is the discretion of the assessee who at the time of registration may provide any e-mail I.D. and phone number of his choice for communication and the petitioner in exercise of his discretion has provided the mobile number and e-mail I.D. of his Accountant. The department cannot be faulted for sending the communications at the registered e-mail and mobile number, even if the Accountant has subsequently left the job inasmuch as it is always a duty of the assessee to intimate any change in I.D, mobile number or e-mail address.

8. The department on its part is under a mandate to communicate to the assessee on the details provided at the time of registration. It is noticed in the present writ petition that two date were fixed for filing of the reply and for personal hearing and the petitioner did not appear either on these two dates.

9. Considering the grounds raised by the petitioner that the matter was never fixed on 23.12.2025 on which the order is passed despite the fact that the guidelines in this regard have been issued by the respondents. It is noticed that violation of principle of natural justice is not a straitjacket formula and has to be considered from case to case basis. Another important aspect that apart from being violation of principle of natural justice, the person has to demonstrate that he has been adversely prejudiced due to not providing opportunity of hearing.

10. In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims to be unaware of the communication made by the department with regard to hearing in the assessment proceedings under challenge.

11. In the present writ petition, it could not be indicated as to how the petitioner was prejudiced inasmuch as he never participated or appeared as per the notice submitted by the department to him. In case the petitioner had appeared in the proceedings and subsequently a date has been fixed on which the order was passed which was never communicated to the petitioner would have certainly have relevant ground for interference as a person has to demonstrate violation of principle of natural justice as well prejudice caused to him. But in the present where the petitioner has not appeared on any date he cannot claim that he was prejudiced because the order was passed on a date which was not fixed in the matter.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any ground for interference, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.