2025 (6) TMI 1250 - HC - GST

Challenge to Ext.P6 order issued by the 3rd respondent u/s 73 of the SGST/CGST Act 2017 - non-service of notice - petitioner contended that even though the notice to the petitioner was uploaded in the portal the same was not served upon the petitioner in any of the methods contemplated u/s 169(1) (a) (b) and (c) of the SGST/CGST Act - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - As far as the service of notice is concerned Section 169 of the SGST/CGST Act contemplates various methods for the same. Section169(1)(d) contemplates for service of notice by way of making it available in the common portal. Since the statute recognizes any one of the modes as referred to in Section169(1) as the proper service of notice the effective service through any one of the modes would amount to sufficient notice for initiating or continuing proceedings under the Act. The issue raised by the petitioner has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. The State Tax Officer -I Kottarakkara 2024 (7) TMI 915 - KERALA HIGH COURT wherein it was held that the service of notice by making it available on the portal would be sufficient. There are no justifiable reasons to entertain this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke statutory remedies if any.

Summary

The Kerala High Court, through Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A., dismissed the writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order issued under Section 73 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the notice was not properly served as required under Section 169(1)(a), (b), and (c), arguing that mere uploading of the notice on the portal does not constitute valid service. The Court referred to Section 169(1)(d), which expressly permits service by making the notice available on the common portal, and relied on the Division Bench decision in *Sunil Kumar K. v. The State Tax Officer -I, Kottarakkara* (W.A. No.938/2024), holding that "service of notice by making it available on the portal, would be sufficient." Consequently, the Court held that effective service by any one of the modes under Section 169(1) satisfies the requirement of proper notice, and found no violation of principles of natural justice. The petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue statutory remedies.