Deemed Service of GST Notices via the Common Portal under Section 169 of GST Act

1. Introduction

In M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial State Tax Officer (Madras High Court, 22 April 2025), a batch of writ petitions challenged ex parte GST assessment orders passed against multiple assessees. All petitions raised a common grievance: notices and orders were communicated solely by uploading on the GST common portal pursuant to Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“GST Act”), without any further service or personal hearing. The petitioners contended that uploading alone was not an “effective” mode of service, breached the principles of natural justice, and should not trigger appeal timelines. The Government responded that the common portal is a “designated computer resource,” so under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) service by upload is instantaneous and valid.

Key Issues:

Whether making notices available on the GST common portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the GST Act;
Interaction between GST Act’s service provisions and Sections 12–13 of the IT Act on “designated computer resource”;
Requirement for alternative modes (e.g., registered post) where no response follows portal upload;
Compliance with principles of natural justice in ex parte assessments;
Remedies and conditions for remitting disputes back for fresh adjudication.

Parties:

Petitioners: Various traders and service providers (e.g., Axiom Gen Nxt India Pvt. Ltd., Esarams Bio Tech, TVL Asian Industrial Valves, etc.).
Respondents: Commercial/State Tax Officers across Chennai, Coimbatore, Salem, Tiruppur, Krishnagiri, etc.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that:

Section 169(1) of the GST Act lists six alternative modes of service; uploading on the common portal (clause (d)) is a “sufficient” mode.
Under Section 13(2)(a)–(b) of the IT Act, the moment an electronic record enters the “designated computer resource” (the common portal), it is deemed received by the addressee.
Uploading alone, while sufficient, may not be “effective” in eliciting a response. Revenue officers should follow up with alternative modes (e.g., RPAD) when no reply is filed, to safeguard natural justice and avoid ex parte orders.
All impugned ex parte assessment orders were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. In most cases the petitions were allowed on condition of a 25% deposit of disputed tax; in some, no condition or a 10% deposit was imposed based on registration status.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Pushpam Reality v. State Tax Officer, Hosur (2022 SCC Online Mad 9102) – Confirmed that GST Act’s Section 169 modes are alternative; upload on portal is valid service.
Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. Superintendent of Central Tax (2022 SCC Online Mad 8986) – Held that “upload = tender” under Section 169(2), rejecting any narrow literalism that excludes portal service from “tendering.”
New Grace Automech Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer, Hosur (2023 SCC Online Mad 8153) – Emphasised sufficiency of portal service under Section 169(1)(d) and clarified there is no “conscious exclusion” of “upload” from deemed service.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Statutory Text and Alternative Modes: Section 169(1) prescribes six methods—direct tender, RPAD, email, portal upload, newspaper publication, and affixure. The word “or” indicates alternatives; compliance with any one suffices.
Deeming Fiction in Section 169(2): Applies expressly to modes (a), (b), (e) and (f) where physical transit causes delay; modes (c)–(d) (email and portal) are instantaneous by design.
Role of IT Act Sections 12–13: A “computer resource” under S.2(k) includes the GST portal. Once designated, receipt occurs when an electronic record “enters” it (S.13(2)(a)(i)). If no designation, S.13(2)(b) deems receipt on entry to any addressee resource.
Designation by Operation of Law: By notification under S.146 of the GST Act, the common portal is the single electronic interface for registration, returns, SCNs, orders, and appeals. All assessees necessarily “designate” it from registration till cancellation.
Need for Effectiveness and Natural Justice: While upload satisfies sufficiency, Departments must employ an “effective” mode (e.g., RPAD) if no response to portal S.C. notices. Merely logging non-reply and passing ex parte orders without further service violates natural justice.
Remedial Framework: Impugned orders set aside; most assessees must deposit 25% of disputed tax to secure a fresh hearing; some cases attract lighter or no deposits depending on registration cancellation mode.

3.3 Impact

Clarified Service Regime: Consolidates that GST portal uploads are valid service but imposes best-practice duties on authorities to follow up by RPAD or other modes when assessees do not respond.
IT Act Integration: Affirms interplay between GST Act’s service clauses and IT Act’s “designated computer resource” principles, setting a template for other e-governance statutes.
Litigation Strategy: Assessees must monitor portal diligently; Revenue must not rely solely on upload to pass ex parte orders that risk reversal on principles of natural justice.
Future Drafting: May prompt amendments or clarifications in GST rules/circulars mandating dual-mode service when portal replies are absent.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

“Designated Computer Resource”: Any electronic channel (portal, email) officially assigned to receive e-notices. Once assigned, service is instant the moment a notice “enters” it.
“Deeming Fiction”: A statutory rule that treats an event as having happened on a certain date—e.g., deemed service on “tender,” “publication,” or “affixure” under Section 169(2).
“Ex Parte Order”: An order issued without hearing the other side. In tax law, permissible only if service has been properly completed and no reply is filed.
“Principles of Natural Justice”: Right to know allegations (audi alteram partem) and be heard before adverse action—fundamental to fair adjudication.
GST DRC-07: The summary assessment order form, containing a recap of tax, interest, penalty, but not the full adjudication reasons.

5. Conclusion

This decision cements the validity of GST common-portal service under Section 169(1)(d) as a “designated computer resource” pursuant to IT Act principles, while insisting that Revenue authorities adopt effective follow-up measures—especially RPAD—where assessees do not respond. It balances administrative convenience with natural-justice safeguards, compelling Departments to ensure genuine opportunity before ex parte assessments. Going forward, both taxpayers and officers must treat the portal as the primary channel, yet remain vigilant to alternative service modes for a defensible, final adjudication.