“Notice Served, Justice Preserved”: Why Proper Service Under GST Must Enable Response, Not Create Litigation
Communication for initiating any proceedings or next actions/demands under proceedings are as important as the cause of proceedings itself. Based out of the natural justice principle, service of communication is an important aspect of litigation, without which the respondent (taxpayer) might not get opportunity to make his case representations.
This will make the whole proceedings futile and unfair. Imagine that a notice was issued (under any medium provided in law) but was never received by the taxpayer. The taxpayer may not be able to respond to it even if he/she genuinely wanted to respond. In this context, we dive into legislative backing and jurisprudence.
1. Statutory framework – Service of notice under GST
Under GST, the manner of serving any SCN, order, summons or communication is governed by Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The provision recognises multiple valid modes, including
(i) giving directly (physical mode), (ii) registered post/speed post/courier, (iii) e-mail, (iv) making it available on the common portal, (v) publication in newspaper, and (vi) affixing at the last known place of business/residence.
The larger purpose of Section 169 is not merely technical compliance – it is to ensure that the taxpayer actually receives an effective opportunity to respond.
2. Jurisprudence and judicial view in this regard
Recently, in Rajkumar Dyeing & Printing Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. (2026-VIL-45-CAL, decided on 13.01.2026, the High Court examined a dispute arising from service of a SCN and adjudication order through uploading on the GST portal under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab.
The petitioner contended that service only under an “additional” tab deprived them of real knowledge and response opportunity.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on limitation. Authority assumed that SMS/e-mail intimation “must have been sent”, but conclusively didn’t establish such service.
The Court found that mere possibility/assumption is insufficient, especially when the taxpayer produced an e-mail screenshot showing no intimation.
The adjudication order was also set aside because no personal hearing was granted. There were violation of Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice.
Further, the adjudication order was found unreasoned, thus unsustainable. The matter was remanded with directions to permit reply and grant personal hearing to the party.
Further the Court relied on its earlier decision passed by co-ordinate bench in Sankar Agarwala v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise (WPA 2116 of 2025, decided 03.11.2025). The said order involved a similar issue and was adverse order without personal hearing, leading to remand.
This reflects a consistent litigation approach: portal upload alone, without reliable proof of intimation and opportunity, is vulnerable, particularly when it results in denial of response/hearing.
3. How notices should ideally be served (and why the purpose is dispute resolution)
The object of notice is not to create limitation traps but to ensure fair adjudication. Therefore, even though portal upload is a recognised mode under Section 169, authorities should ensure service is effective, provable, and response-enabling. More so, when the taxpayers are slowly getting accustomed to the online communication, which was never there in the pre-GST era (where only physical mode was used).
Best practice:
Serve notice on the common portal + e-mail + SMS alert (where system-generated), ensuring a verifiable audit trail to ensure communication.
If the matter has adverse consequences, ensure mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4). It is important since there are no remedies for ex-parte orders.
Orders must be reasoned, reflecting application of mind, so that appellate remedy is meaningful.
The department should retain system logs/evidence of dispatch (e-mail/SMS trigger reports).
In sum: Service is not “successful” when uploaded, it is successful when it meaningfully enables response and hearing , thereby resolving disputes rather than manufacturing litigation.
By,
CA Hitesh Sachdev
Indirect tax professional, Pune
Disclaimer:
This article is intended solely for academic and professional discussion. It does not constitute legal advice or a formal opinion. The views expressed are personal and based on the author’s understanding of the statutory provisions, GST instructions, rules and judicial precedents as on the date of writing. Readers are advised to consult the relevant statutory provisions and professional advisors before acting on the basis of this article.
