Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged a final order passed under Section 74(9) of the UPGST Act, 2017, on the sole ground that service of the underlying notice was not in terms of Section 169 of the Act. It was conceded that the notice had in fact been uploaded on the GST common portal — a valid mode of service under clause (d) of Section 169(1) — but the petitioner contended that the employee who held the login credentials had left the job, so the petitioner could not access or become aware of the notice until its bank account was attached in a separate proceeding. An identical contention by the same petitioner had already been rejected by the same High Court in a connected matter (Writ Tax No.602 of 2025).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the residual/fallback mode of service under clause (f) of Section 169(1) of the UPGST Act — triggered 'if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable' — is attracted where a notice has been validly uploaded on the common portal but the assessee's own employee holding the portal password has left its employment.
  2. Whether such an assessee can resist an order passed under Section 74 on the ground of improper service in these circumstances.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Since the employee holding the portal password had left the job, the petitioner could not access the portal, making the mode of service under clause (d) impracticable for it in fact, thereby attracting the residual mode under clause (f) of Section 169(1).

Respondent's Arguments

  • It was not disputed that the notice was uploaded on the common portal, a mode expressly permitted under clause (d) of Section 169(1), and it was contended that clause (f) refers only to modes not being practicable from the department's side, not to an assessee's internal access difficulties.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the words 'if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable' in clause (f) of Section 169(1) refer to the preceding modes of service not being practicable for the department issuing the notice, and do not cater to a scenario where the assessee itself could not access a validly uploaded notice.
  • The petitioner's counsel was found to have misread and misunderstood the purport of clause (f); since the notice was admittedly uploaded on the common portal under clause (d), clause (f) had no application on the facts.
  • Judgments of the Madras High Court relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished as inapplicable.
  • The writ petition was dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to file a statutory appeal against the impugned order, as far as permissible in law.

Important Clarification

  • Valid service of a GST show cause notice or order by uploading it on the common portal under Section 169(1)(d) is complete service in law and is not vitiated merely because the taxpayer's own employee holding the portal login credentials left employment and the taxpayer failed to internally monitor its portal account.
  • The residual service modes under clause (f) of Section 169(1) (e.g., affixation) come into play only when none of the preceding modes are practicable for the department to use — they are not a fallback available to an assessee who failed to check a notice that was, in fact, properly uploaded.

Sections Involved

  • Section 169(1), CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 — modes of service of notice, particularly clauses (d) (common portal) and (f) (residual mode of affixation).
  • Section 74(9), CGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax in fraud/suppression cases, culminating in a final order.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Department. The writ petition was dismissed, though without prejudice to the petitioner's statutory right of appeal.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; WRIT TAX No.623 of 2025; Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:42611-DB; Coram: Hon'ble Justice Rajan Roy and Hon'ble Justice Manish Kumar; Date of Order: 24.07.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.