The Madras High Court has emphasized that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department must adopt alternative service methods, including Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), when taxpayers fail to respond to multiple notices uploaded on the GST portal. The Court observed that although service via the portal may be legally sufficient, it is not always effective.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, presiding over the case M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited v. Commercial State Tax Officer [W.P.No.1114 of 2025], made it clear that “once if no response was received for the notices, viz., ASMT-10, DRC-01A, DRC-01, etc., which were uploaded in the common portal by the department, at least they have to send the subsequent reminders by way of RPAD. If any one notice is received by the assessee, he cannot make a plea that they were unaware of the notices, which were uploaded in the common portal.
In this matter, the petitioner-assessee contended that the GST Department had relied solely on Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, which permits service by uploading on the portal, but failed to attempt other prescribed modes under Section 169(1)(b), such as RPAD. The petitioner argued that if RPAD had been used, the Department could have passed a detailed and reasoned order, thus avoiding an ex parte decision and saving time for both officers and taxpayers.
In response, the Department argued that Section 169 of the GST Act allows various service modes as alternatives and using any one of them would suffice.
However, the Court took a critical view of the Department’s approach. It said, If the department adopts only one mode, like portal upload, and ignores all other available alternatives, the act becomes an empty formality and fails its intended purpose. The Court stated that while portal upload might legally count as service, the objective of proper communication to the assessee is defeated without effective delivery.
Read Also:-FIR Must Be Registered Against Unauthorized Subletting: DGP Tells Madras High Court
Referring to the Information Technology Act, the Court clarified that electronic service may be considered as ‘sending’, but it does not confirm ‘receipt’. Therefore, uploading a notice on the portal without verifying its reach to the assessee cannot be considered effective service.
The Court pointed out that some assessees missed the notices because they were placed under the "View Additional Notices and Orders" section of the portal instead of the "View Notices" tab. In many cases, even though taxpayers visited the portal regularly for compliance filings, they were unaware of the pending notices.
“Whenever service is not effective, the Department must use alternate methods like RPAD,” the Court stated.
It further held that in such situations, the onus is also partly on the assessee, especially if they had failed to keep track of portal communications. However, the Court ultimately concluded that the fault lay on both sides—the Department for not using effective service, and the assessee for lack of vigilance.
Read Also:-Madras High Court Dismisses Petitions by Tamil Nadu and TASMAC Against ED’s Search Operations
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned ex parte orders and granted the petitioner another opportunity to respond.
Case Title: M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited v. Commercial State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.No.1114 of 2025
Counsel for Respondent/ Department: P.S. Raman, U. Baranidharan, V. Prashanth Kiran, Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, T.N.C. Kaushik, C. Harsha Raj, K.Vasanthamala, C. Harsha Raj
