The Allahabad High Court ruled that merely uploading hearing dates on the GST portal does not constitute valid service without proof of communication to the assessee. The Court rejected inquiries into emails, filters, or deletions as impractical in proceedings.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court held that merely uploading hearing dates on the GST portal, without demonstrating effective communication to the assessee, cannot be considered valid service, especially when the receipt of such notice is explicitly denied.
The Court emphasized that engaging in a forensic inquiry to determine whether electronic communications were received, deleted, or redirected to spam folders is neither practical nor desirable in writ proceedings.
The Court cited the Division Bench decision in M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., which held that unless an adjudication or appellate order is properly communicated, it cannot be deemed validly served under the GST Act.
Factual Backgrounds:
In this case, the petitioner’s goods were transported from Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal with a valid invoice and e-way bill. However, on October 27, 2024, the consignment was intercepted, leading to proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017.
A physical inspection confirmed that there were no discrepancies in the quantity or description of the goods compared to the invoice. Despite this, the goods and the vehicle were detained, a show cause notice (MOV-07) was issued, and an order under Section 129(3) was made on October 28, 2024, demanding a penalty, formalized in MOV-09.
The petitioner appealed the detention order to the Appellate Authority, but the appeal was dismissed ex parte on September 10, 2025, purportedly due to non-appearance. The petitioner claimed that they had not received any notice of the hearing, arguing that merely uploading hearing dates on the GST portal does not equate to valid service.
They contended that the appellate order violated the principles of natural justice. The revenue defended its position, stating that several hearing dates had been posted on the portal and that the petitioner intentionally avoided participation.
Issue:
- Whether the rejection of the statutory appeal ex parte, based solely on alleged notification via the portal, is legally valid ?
- Whether simply uploading hearing dates on the GST portal, without evidence of effective communication, meets the service of notice requirement?
Court’s Observation:
The Court concluded that merely uploading hearing dates on the GST portal, without demonstrating effective communication to the assessee, cannot be considered valid service, especially when the receipt of such notice is explicitly denied. The Court emphasized that engaging in a forensic inquiry to determine whether electronic communications were received, deleted, or redirected to spam folders is neither practical nor desirable in writ proceedings.
The Court cited the Division Bench decision in M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., which held that unless an adjudication or appellate order is properly communicated, it cannot be deemed validly served under the GST Act.
In the absence of clear proof of service, dismissing the appeal for non-appearance constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. As a result, the appellate order dated September 10, 2025, was set aside, and the matter was referred back to the appellate authority for reconsideration.
The High Court concluded that the ex parte appellate order could not stand, as the issue regarding notice service through the GST portal was still in dispute and unresolved.
Case name: M/s Shiv Traders Versus State of U.P. and 2 Others, dated January 27, 2026.