Mere uploading of an order passed under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 on the GSTN portal does not amount to communication as required under Section 107 of the GST Act

Mere uploading an order passed under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 in the GST portal by no stretch of imagination would satisfy the requirement of communicating to the assessee as per Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017

Facts of the Case

• The petitioner is a registered assessee with the second respondent under the TNGST Act.
• Surprise inspections were conducted at the petitioner’s business premises on 10.11.2022 and 11.11.2022.
• Show cause notices dated 28.02.2023 were issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22, followed by personal hearing notices.
• The petitioner submitted replies and attended the personal hearing on 03.10.2023.
• Orders levying tax, interest, and penalty were passed against the petitioner.
• The petitioner claims the impugned orders were not served but only uploaded on the GSTN Portal, resulting in missing the appeal timeline.
• Writ petitions were filed challenging the impugned orders, seeking relief to move the appellate authority.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner

• Impugned orders were not served but only uploaded on the GSTN Portal.
• Petitioner was unaware of the orders and missed the appeal timeline.
• Seeks the Court’s intervention to allow challenge to the impugned orders in writ proceedings or to permit appeal before the appellate authority.

Respondents

• Uploading of the impugned orders on the portal constitutes service; limitation for appeal starts from the date of uploading.
• Relied on Section 169 of the Act read with Rule 142, and judicial precedents supporting portal upload as valid service.
• Argued that the writ petitioner, having missed the statutory timeline, cannot seek relief; the Court’s hands are tied.

Issues

• Whether uploading the impugned order in the GSTN portal alone is sufficient service under Section 169 of the TNGST Act.
• Whether the limitation for filing appeal under Section 107 of the Act starts running from the date of uploading the order on the portal.

Decision

A. Statutory Scheme and Relevant Provisions (p4–5)

• The Court identified Section 169 of the Act and Rule 142 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as the relevant provisions governing service of orders and notices.
• Section 169(1) prescribes multiple alternative modes of service, including direct delivery, registered post, e-mail, making available on the common portal, publication in a newspaper, and affixing at the last known place of business or on the notice board.
• Section 169(2) deems service to have occurred on the date of tender, publication, or affixation as per sub-section (1).
• Rule 142 mandates electronic uploading of summaries and orders in specified forms on the portal, and provides for electronic communication of notices and orders.
• The Court reproduced the full text of the relevant statutory provisions for clarity. (p4–5)

B. Precedents Relied Upon by Respondents (p6)

• The respondents relied on several judicial precedents holding that uploading orders on the common portal constitutes proper service:
  • Mr. Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. The Superintendent of Central Tax, (2022) taxcode.in 123 HC: Uploading on the portal is “tendering” and a proper mode of service.
  • WP No.33562 of 2025 etc. batch (Madras High Court, 09.04.2025): Followed Pandidorai.
  • WP No.35115 of 2022 (Madras High Court, 03.01.2023): Same view.
  • Koduvayur Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract, Palakad (2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11392): Assessee must verify the portal; any method under Section 169(1) suffices.
  • Ram Prasad Sharma v. Chief Commissioner and anr (2020 SCC OnLine MP 4650): Show cause notice/order should be uploaded on the Revenue website, not communicated by e-mail.
  • New Hanumat Marbles v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2023) taxcode.in 45 HC: Same lines.
  • Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456): Statutory provisions not struck down as unconstitutional must be implemented.

C. Precedents Relied Upon by Petitioner (p7)

• The petitioner relied on contrary judicial views:
  • WP(MD)No.26481 of 2024 (Shahul Hameed vs. CTO, Tuticorin-II): Uploading in the portal may be sufficient service but not effective service.
  • 2025 (6) TMI 2027 Namasivaya Auto Cars v. The Deputy Sales Tax Officer-I, Korattur: Consistent view that uploading is not effective service.
  • 2025 (6) TMI 251 (Binod Traders v. UOI, Patna High Court): Uploading of show cause notice in the portal does not suffice.
  • Raj International v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West and Ors., (2025) taxcode.in 218 HC: Department should serve through portal, e-mail, mobile, and speed post.

D. Cleavage of Judicial Opinion and Division Bench Authority (p8)

• The Court noted a cleavage of opinion among Madras High Court Judges.
• Reference to Division Bench in A.Sanjeevi Naidu v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kanchipuram (1972 SCC OnLine Mad 347): When rules provide various modes of service, they are alternative, not cumulative. (p8)

E. Nature of Power and Requirement of Fairness (p9)

• Section 169 prescribes alternative modes, giving the department a choice, which is a statutory power.
• Such power must be exercised fairly, as per R vs Secretary of State for the Home Department (1994) 1 AC 530, approved in NHAI vs Madhukar Kumar (2022) 14 SCC 661.
• Techno Prints vs. Chhattishgarh Textbook Corporation (2025 INSC 236): Authority’s power must be reasonably exercised.
• Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 2 SCC 108: Rule of practical interpretation; interpretation should not frustrate the law’s purpose. (p9)

F. Digital Divide and Practical Difficulties (p10)

• The Court took judicial notice of the digital divide, especially for small businesses who rely on consultants for GST compliance.
• After registration cancellation, there may be no occasion to access the portal.
• Allahabad High Court in M/S Lalaram Thekedar vs Union of India (WRIT TAX No. – 2786 of 2025, 04.07.2025): Once registration is cancelled, petitioner is not obligated to check GST portal.
• Reference to a previous Division Bench case where the Court had erroneously endorsed a submission regarding portal access post-cancellation. (p10)

G. Application of Law to Facts—Service and Communication (p11–12)

• Section 169(1) prescribes alternative modes; the Court cannot declare that portal upload is not service, but may hold that in particular facts, other modes should have been used.
• Uploading in the portal is mandatory under Rule 142, but may not be sufficient in all circumstances.
• The writ court can conclude that reasonable exercise of power may require use of other modes of service in specific cases. (p11)
• The real issue is not sufficiency of portal upload as service, but when limitation for appeal under Section 107(1) starts.
• Section 107(1): Limitation runs from the date the order is “communicated” to the assessee, not merely “served.”
• “Served” and “communicated” are distinct; communication implies imparting or transmitting information, requiring the authority to reach out to the assessee.
• Mere uploading on the portal does not satisfy the requirement of communication; there is no obligation on the assessee to access the portal.
• Communication can be achieved by direct delivery, post, or other means that reach the assessee; uploading alone is insufficient. (p12)

H. Finding on Limitation and Directions (p13)

• Since the impugned order was only uploaded on the portal and not communicated, limitation for appeal has not started running for the petitioner.
• Downloading the order from the portal for the purpose of filing the writ petition does not constitute communication.
• The Court directed the second respondent to communicate the impugned order to the petitioner; the petitioner may then file an appeal under Section 107.
• The order cannot be enforced until it is communicated as per law. (p13)

I. Petitioner’s Written Submissions and Suggestions (p14)

• The petitioner highlighted practical difficulties with portal-only communication, especially for small and medium enterprises.
• Suggested reforms:
  • Prominent notification window for legal communications on the portal.
  • Mandatory OTP-based acknowledgment for viewing communications, with functional restrictions until acknowledgment.
  • Physical service of orders in cases of cancelled registration.
  • Systemic restrictions similar to those for return filing non-compliance.
  • Benefits: Reduces litigation, brings clarity, ensures accessibility, saves judicial time.
  • Recommendations for GSTN, GST Council, and governments to implement these measures.
• The Court noted these submissions pertain to a larger policy canvas and extracted them verbatim for consideration by authorities. (p14)

J. Final Order (p15)

• The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the above findings; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. (p15)

Conclusion

The Court held that mere uploading of the impugned orders on the GSTN portal does not amount to communication as required under Section 107 of the TNGST Act; limitation for appeal does not commence until the order is actually communicated to the assessee. The respondents are directed to communicate the impugned orders to the petitioner, who may then file an appeal. The impugned orders cannot be enforced until such communication is effected.

Disposition

Writ petitions disposed of; direction issued to the second respondent to communicate the impugned orders to the petitioner; petitioner permitted to file appeal under Section 107; impugned orders not to be enforced until communication as per law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Source: Sharp Tanks and Structurals Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) and Anr., (2025) taxcode.in 681 HC