SKM Infraventure (P.) Ltd. v. CT & GST Office
In favour of the revenue
The ruling in brief
SKM Infraventure (P.) Ltd. challenged Section 74 CGST proceedings before the Orissa High Court (WP(C) 7800/2026, 25 June 2026), alleging non-service of notices uploaded on the GST portal and denial of fair adjudication on fraud allegations. The department defended service through the common portal under Section 169 and produced portal history. The court examined records showing assessee participation in the proceedings and found claims of ignorance lacked credibility. Portal service was upheld as valid in these facts. The writ petition was dismissed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Unlike Luxmi Traders fact patterns, Orissa distinguishes cases where portal records demonstrate actual engagement, allowing Section 74 adjudication to stand when service is effectively acknowledged by conduct rather than bare denial in writ proceedings.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.169 — Service of notice in certain circumstances, including portal upload.
- CGST S.74 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid involving fraud or suppression.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
Absolute Electrovision (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi East
Absolute Electrovision (P.) Ltd. challenged adjudication under Section 74 CGST before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 6593/2025, 11 August 2026), alleging that the show cause notice was never duly served, depriving it of a chance to reply, and that liability was presumed without valid service. The writ court confined itself to validity of service and limitation, deferring merits of the demand. Section 169 and the principles in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh were applied to assess whether portal or other modes constituted effective service. Where service failed statutory and judicial standards, ex parte adjudication could not stand. The petition was allowed in favour of the assessee. Practitioners should treat this as part of a consistent Delhi High Court line requiring the department to prove more than bare portal upload when disputing receipt. The decision does not adjudicate ITC or fraud merits but restores procedural fairness at the notice stage.
In favour of the assessee
Lazard Infrastructure LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Lazard Infrastructure LLP filed a writ before the Karnataka High Court (WP 28678/2026, 15 September 2026) after its supplier LLP's input tax credit was blocked on the GST portal without prior intimation or pre-decisional hearing, based largely on advisory communication pending verification. The block disrupted downstream credit availability though no formal notice under Rule 86A preceded the restriction. Rule 86A and Section 169 were considered. The court found mechanical blocking unjustified where no show cause or hearing preceded the restriction. ITC was directed to be unblocked forthwith; fresh action could proceed only after due notice and opportunity of hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Recipient taxpayers affected by supplier-side blocks gain support for immediate unblock orders when departments act on unverified alerts without Rule 86A compliance, paralleling GVS Engineering on procedural invalidity.
See the decision
Tahir Khan v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue/WBGST, Government of West Bengal
Tahir Khan approached the Calcutta High Court (WPA 9627/2024, 10 September 2026) with similar facts to companion logistics cases: show cause notice and adjudication order appeared under "Additional Notices and Orders" without separate intimation, and no personal hearing was afforded under Section 75 CGST read with Section 169. Unable to reply, the petitioner faced ex parte liability including interest and penalty. The court held natural justice was violated, quashed the impugned order and directed opportunity of personal hearing with a fresh speaking order on merits. Outcome: assessee-favourable remand. Tahir Khan illustrates the Calcutta High Court's consolidated approach to West Bengal portal-tab defects and "NA" hearing entries in 2024–2026 adjudications, leaving revenue free to re-determine tax after compliance with Section 169.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
T. K. Logistics v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue/WBGST, Government of West Bengal
T. K. Logistics filed a writ before the Calcutta High Court (WPA 9623/2024, 10 September 2026) against an adjudication order and show cause notice demanding tax, interest and penalty uploaded only under the portal tab "Additional Notice and Orders," without separate intimation; personal hearing showed "NA." The company discovered the demand only when enforcement was initiated. Sections 169 and 75 CGST applied. The petitioner remained unaware and could not reply. Justice Smita Das De found breach of natural justice, quashed the order-in-original and remanded for hearing after valid notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. The decision pairs mis-tabbed service with failure to grant Section 75 personal hearing as grounds to reopen GST demands in West Bengal, consistent with Raju Ghosh and Tahir Khan.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
A 1 Enterprises v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato
A 1 Enterprises filed a writ before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 11634/2026, 13 August 2026) impugning a show cause notice and order under Section 73 CGST on the ground that both were served only by uploading on the GST portal, without proof of actual intimation or receipt, and that no reply had been filed in ignorance. The revenue relied on Section 169 on deemed service through the common portal. The court held that portal-only service without acknowledgement or evidence of receipt is insufficient where the assessee denies effective notice, following the approach in Luxmi Traders on meaningful service for proceedings with serious civil consequences. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee was granted opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand to the adjudication stage. The case reinforces that electronic upload alone does not dispense with the revenue's obligation to establish valid service under Section 169 when the taxpayer had no real opportunity to respond.