Service Of Notices Orders case laws
Look up GST High Court, GSTAT, and advance-ruling decisions by topic — with a complete summary for each matter and the source judgment PDF when you need the full text.
22 rulings
Lazard Infrastructure LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
In favour of the assessee
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.
Tahir Khan v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue/WBGST, Government of West Bengal
See the decision
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.
T. K. Logistics v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue/WBGST, Government of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
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.
A 1 Enterprises v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
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.
Winstrol Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, State GST
In favour of the assessee
Winstrol Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd. challenged Uttarakhand GST adjudication (WP 3695/2024, 11 August 2026) where the show cause notice was uploaded only on the portal after registration cancellation, without alternate modes under Section 169 or personal hearing under Section 73. The demand included tax, interest and penalty determined ex parte. The court held a cancelled registrant is not obliged to monitor the portal; portal-only service was invalid and failure to grant hearing rendered the adjudication order unsustainable. The order was quashed with liberty to the department to proceed after lawful service. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Combined with Ayaz Traders, Uttarakhand law now clearly rejects post-cancellation portal-only demands absent email, registered post or other prescribed service modes under Section 169.
Gajendra Singh Cont. v. Assistant Commissioner
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
In a contempt-related writ before the Uttarakhand High Court (WP 647/2026, 11 August 2026), Gajendra Singh challenged an adjudication order passed after cancellation of registration, without personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) CGST and with notice served only via portal post-cancellation. The demand related to tax, interest and penalty determined without the petitioner participating. Sections 169, 73 and 75 governed service and hearing. The court quashed the order and directed fresh adjudication after granting proper personal hearing in accordance with law, including valid service where registration no longer required portal monitoring. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. The ruling integrates cancelled-registration service law with mandatory personal hearing under Section 75, preventing ex parte demands where both defects coexist and reinforcing Uttarakhand's approach in Winstrol and Ayaz Traders.
Absolute Electrovision (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi East
In favour of the assessee
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.
DOT Truckers Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Faridabad (West) Ward 5 Faridabad
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
DOT Truckers Ltd. approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court (decided 7 August 2026) against GST proceedings where the show cause notice or order-in-original was served only through portal upload, without acknowledgment or reply. The assessee denied effective notice and sought quashing of ex parte liability. Section 169 CGST was central. Relying on Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, the court held such portal-only service insufficient to bind the assessee or start limitation for appeal. Proceedings were restored to the show cause notice stage for a proper reply opportunity. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. The decision is another Rohit Kapoor bench application of the Luxmi Traders standard in Haryana, treating unacknowledged electronic upload as non-service until statutory modes or proven receipt exist, without prejudice to the revenue's right to re-adjudicate after valid service.
Shanaya Enterprises v. State of Punjab
In favour of the assessee
Shanaya Enterprises filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 23234/2026, 28 July 2026) disputing validity of GST notice and order-in-original served only by portal upload without acknowledgment or reply. The petitioner learned of the demand only when coercive steps were threatened, having never filed a reply. Section 169 CGST applied. The court followed Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and held mere upload did not constitute valid service. Impugned proceedings were set aside or restored for response as prayed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The judgment is a straightforward application of the Chandigarh High Court standard across Punjab, reinforcing that assessees may contest demands when the department cannot prove effective electronic intimation beyond passive portal posting.
United Chem India v. Excise and Taxation Officer
In favour of the assessee
United Chem India filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (27 July 2026) against notice and order-in-original served only by GST portal upload without acknowledgment or reply. The assessee sought quashing of ex parte liability and restoration of appellate rights dismissed as time-barred. Sections 169 and 146 CGST applied. Following Luxmi Traders, electronic uploading alone was insufficient service; ex parte proceedings were restored to the show cause stage for reply, and appeal limitation did not commence from mere upload. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The case mirrors parallel Rohit Kapoor bench rulings in July 2026 reinforcing uniform Punjab-Haryana treatment of unacknowledged portal service and aligning with Gugal Electrical and Shanaya Enterprises on limitation for appeals under Section 107.
Gugal Electrical and Engg. Works v. State of Punjab
In favour of the assessee
Gugal Electrical and Engg. Works filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 21363/2025, 27 July 2026) against show cause notice and order-in-original served solely by GST portal upload without acknowledgment or reply. The assessee had filed appeals rejected as time-barred on the assumption that portal posting started limitation. Sections 169 and 146 CGST were read together; Rule 142 was noted. Following Luxmi Traders, portal-only upload did not constitute valid service or trigger appeal limitation; appeals dismissed as time-barred were restored. Retrospective amendments did not salvage invalid service because Rules did not permit the mode used. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Practitioners facing time-barred appeal dismissals on portal-service assumptions should cite this precedent for restoration of appellate rights when receipt was never established and merits may be heard afresh.
Ayaz Traders v. Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Ayaz Traders challenged adjudication before the Uttarakhand High Court (WP 86/2025, 23 July 2026) after its GST registration was cancelled and a show cause notice and order were served only by portal upload under Sections 169 and 73. The assessee contended it was no longer obliged to monitor the portal. The court agreed that exclusive portal service after cancellation is invalid because a non-registrant lacks the statutory duty to track the common portal for new demands. Adjudication and appellate orders were quashed; the revenue may proceed afresh after valid service of the show cause notice. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. This joins Uttarakhand authority requiring alternate modes under Section 169 when registration stands cancelled, protecting taxpayers from silent ex parte liability.
Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana
In favour of the assessee
Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP 15601/2026, 23 July 2026) against ex parte orders and rectification orders served solely by upload on the GST Common Portal. The society cited illiteracy and lack of knowledge of portal monitoring. Sections 169 and 146 CGST and Rule 142 were considered. The court held that mere portal upload is insufficient for valid service affecting limitation where serious civil consequences attach, and that retrospective legal changes did not validate defective service in the facts before it. Portal-only communication did not bind the assessee for limitation or finality purposes. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The decision aligns with Luxmi Traders principles and cautions revenue against assuming universal digital literacy or continuous portal access, particularly for cooperative and smaller taxpayers.
B. Enterprise v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
B. Enterprise filed a writ before the Calcutta High Court (WPA 1079/2026, 22 July 2026) impugning ex parte adjudication under Section 73 CGST. Pre-SCN communications, the show cause notice, reminders and the order appeared only under "Additional notices and orders," not the main Notices/Orders tab, and a personal hearing was scheduled before the reply period expired. Section 169 service and Section 75 hearing requirements were invoked. The court found communication legally inadequate and denial of an effective hearing a violation of natural justice. The ex parte order was set aside with direction to pass a fresh order after affording a proper hearing. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. The judgment combines tab-placement defects with premature hearing dates as independent grounds to vitiate GST adjudication.
Umagaurav (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar
In favour of the revenue
Umagaurav (P.) Ltd. challenged ex parte GST demand before the Patna High Court (CWJC 4914/2026, 17 July 2026), alleging non-service and denial of hearing. The department showed show cause notices and reminders through portal and registered email with specific input tax credit mismatch figures under Sections 73, 75, 79 and 107 CGST and Rule 142. The petitioner neither categorically denied email receipt nor disclosed correct GSTR-2A ITC to rebut the mismatch. Article 226 scope was noted: writ courts do not rehear merits when procedural objections are implausible. Bare allegations lacked credibility against departmental records evidencing participation. The writ failed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Bihar assessees cannot rely on generic non-service pleas where email and portal trails plus undisputed ITC discrepancies show effective engagement, contrasting Subhash Kumar Sah where no such record existed.
Subhash Kumar Sah v. Commissioner, CGST and CX
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Subhash Kumar Sah filed before the Patna High Court (CWJC 3599/2026, 16 July 2026) against cancellation of GST registration based solely on uploading a show cause notice on the portal, without email, registered post or personal hearing. The assessee contended non-compliance with Section 29 read with Rule 22 for suspension and cancellation. Sections 169 and 29 CGST and Rule 22 were invoked. The Division Bench held portal upload alone insufficient for valid service; personal service by prescribed modes and hearing were required before cancellation. The cancellation order was set aside with direction to re-issue show cause notice, afford hearing and pass a reasoned decision. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. Registration cancellation cases in Bihar must comply with multi-mode service expectations beyond silent portal posting.
Raju Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Raju Ghosh challenged West Bengal GST proceedings before the Calcutta High Court (WPA 13917/2026, 16 July 2026) where adjudication orders and related notices were uploaded only under the portal tab "Additional Notices and Orders," leaving him unaware and without effective hearing. Recovery from the electronic credit ledger followed despite no reply to the underlying show cause notice. Sections 169, 73 and 107 framed service and appellate context. Justice Smita Das De held the sequence violated natural justice. All impugned orders and recovery notices were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh hearing after proper service. Outcome: in favour of the assessee with remand. Combined with sibling Calcutta judgments, it establishes a strong local practice against ancillary-tab service and credit-ledger recovery without prior valid notice and personal hearing under Section 75.
Ashok Parakh v. State of West Bengal
In favour of the assessee
Ashok Parakh filed a writ before the Calcutta High Court (WPA 2425/2025, 7 July 2026) against ex parte assessment and appellate orders arising after notices and orders were uploaded only under the "Additional Notices/Orders" tab, allegedly due to a GSTN tabulation glitch of which the network was aware. Sections 169 and 73 CGST framed the service dispute. Justice Kausik Chanda held the petitioner could not be saddled with ex parte assessment when communications never appeared in the primary notices section, breaching natural justice. Assessment and appellate orders were set aside with liberty to the revenue to issue fresh notice properly. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The case is significant for West Bengal GST practice where systemic portal categorization errors have repeatedly led courts to quash demands until valid, visible service is effected.
Alder Crafts v. State of Himachal Pradesh
In favour of the assessee
Alder Crafts challenged GST proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court (CWP 15378/2025, 2 July 2026) after a show cause notice appeared only under the GST portal tab "Additional Notices" rather than "Notices and Orders." Ex parte adjudication and recovery followed. The petitioner relied on Sections 169, 75 and 79 CGST. The Division Bench held there was no valid service on the tab where assessees ordinarily expect primary communications, rendering the subsequent ex parte order and recovery notice unsustainable. All impugned proceedings were quashed with liberty to the revenue to issue a fresh notice through valid modes and tabs. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. The judgment adds to High Court jurisprudence distinguishing main portal notices from ancillary tabs, emphasizing that mis-tabbed uploads frustrate natural justice and cannot trigger coercive recovery or final liability.
SKM Infraventure (P.) Ltd. v. CT & GST Office
In favour of the revenue
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.