GST Rulings

Notice/order can be served on the portal only if it cannot be served in person / by post / email: Madras HC

Order of the High Court of Madras

[dated 06.01.2025, in Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham vs. Authority, from WP(MD) No. 26481 and others of 2024]

The Hon'ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has held that Section 169 of the CGST Act mandates a notice in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively. On a failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes, then the State can, in addition, make a publication of such notices / summons / orders in the portal / newspaper, etc.

Comments

The order is based on application of a Division Bench judgment delivered in the year 1972 on Rule 52 of the TNGST Rules, 1959. To give a brief background:

  • Rule 52 ibid provided for service of notice / order in any of the following ways: (a) in person; (b) to any adult member of the family; (c) registered post; and (d) if none of the aforesaid modes were practicable, by affixing in the place of business / residence.
  • On the other than, Section 169 ibid provides for service of notice / order by any one of the following methods: (a) in person / to any adult member of the family; (b) by postal means; (c) by e-mail; (d) on the common portal; (e) publication in newspaper; (f) if none of the aforesaid modes are practicable, by affixing in the place of business / residence; and if that is also not practicable, by affixing on the notice board of the officer / authority.

While observing correctly that Rule 52(d) ibid and Section 169(1)(f) ibid are pari materia, the aforesaid Division Bench judgment was applied to mean that:

  • clauses (a) to (c) of Section 169(1) alone are alternative; and
  • if that was not practicable, clauses (d) to (f) therein should be followed.

It is not forthcoming in the order why only clauses (a) to (c) of Section 169(1) ibid were held to be pari materia with clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 52 ibid. For that matter, Section 169(1)(c) ibid permits service by email, which is not existent in Rule 52 ibid. Further, the explicit language used in Rule 52 ibid appears to indicate that clauses (a) to (c) therein are rather pari materia with clauses (a) to (e) of Section 169(1) ibid. Moreover, the Division Bench's judgment appears to decide whether the different modes of service are cumulative or alternative.

Nevertheless, service through the common portal is frowned upon, with the undertone being that the not-so-literate taxpayers / their employees are unable to access the notice / order from the common portal. Better taxpayer education and ease of access to the notice / order on the common portal may go a long way in solving the issue.

Srinivasan V, Advocate

Recent Posts

EWB detention proceedings conclude on penalty payment, no need to issue order: Orissa HC

Orissa HC judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2025 Goods were detained &…

3 weeks ago

Refund limitation for GST wrongly paid

GST was paid but later clarified as not payable by a beneficial circular. In Messrs…

1 month ago

GST | Should 3 months be construed as 90 days for limitation?

Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court [dated 05.02.2025, in Cotton Corporation of India vs.…

1 month ago

GST | Should the date of issue of notice/order be included to calculate limitation?

Order of the Patna High Court [dated 04.02.2025, in Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs.…

1 month ago

Goods intercepted due to absence of e-invoice; proceedings to lie u/s.122 not s.129 CGST Act: HC

Order of the High Court of Kerala [dated 07.11.2024, in OSEL Devices Ltd. vs. Assistant…

4 months ago

GST liability on renting of immovable property

Liability matrix Edit Immovable property typeProperty usageSupplier (owner)Recipient (tenant)Tax impact ResidentialResidentialRPURPExempt URPURPNo tax liability Personal…

5 months ago