Valid Service or Effective Service? A Ground-Level Re-examination of Service of Notices and Orders under GST
Summary: The article examines the distinction between valid service and effective service of notices and orders under the GST framework. It states that under Section 169(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 169(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 142(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, service by e-mail to the registered e-mail address and making notices or orders available on the common portal constitute valid service. The author argues that many taxpayers use consultants’ e-mail IDs, may not regularly access e-mail, and the GST portal provides no prominent alerts for notices or orders, requiring users to manually navigate to view them. The article also notes possible issues such as spam filtering, deletion or missed e-mails. It highlights Haryana Excise and Taxation Department Instruction No. 02/2026/GST-II dated 01.06.2026, which directs that Form GST DRC-01 show cause notices and Form GST DRC-07 demand orders under Sections 73, 74, 74A or 122, though served through the common portal, should additionally be intimated by registered or speed post within fifteen days while clarifying that the statutory position on deemed service under Section 169 remains unchanged. The article urges wider adoption of this additional communication approach.
I. The Settled Legal Position — and Its Blind Spot
Legal pundits and learned Lordships of various counts have decided that as per the provisions of Section 169(1)(c) and (d) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 169(2) and Rule 142(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, service of a notice or order by e-mail to the registered e-mail address is valid service, and that making an order available on the common portal is equally valid service. On the letter of the law, there is little to quarrel with.
But what these learned analyses miss is that GST is a totally system-driven tax administration operating in a country where the ground realities are far removed from the assumptions built into the statute. In India, a very large number of taxpayers do not have their own e-mail IDs — leave alone the habit of checking e-mail regularly. It is an open secret that at the time of migration and registration, the e-mail IDs and mobile numbers of tax consultants and chartered accountants were furnished on behalf of lakhs of taxpayers. Under such circumstances, whether the despatch of show cause notices and orders by e-mail, or their silent upload on the portal, constitutes effective service — as distinct from merely valid service — needs a sympathetic re-examination.
II. The Portal: A Home Page That Tells You Nothing
Consider the argument that uploading an order on the portal is sufficient service. A taxpayer ordinarily logs in to the GST portal at least twice a month — once for filing GSTR-1 and once for filing GSTR-3B. Even when a show cause notice has been issued, or an order has been passed against him, when he logs in, everything on the home screen appears as usual. No alert is placed by way of a pop-up, a flash, scrolling text, or a blinking indicator on any part of the screen. To discover his fate, the taxpayer must consciously navigate to Services → User Services → View Notices and Orders — and, worse still, sometimes to View Additional Notices and Orders, a tab whose very existence many taxpayers are unaware of. Is a taxpayer expected to perform this navigation ritual every day of his business life, on the off chance that the department has something to tell him?
Contrast this with the portal’s behaviour in the reverse direction. In GSTR-3B, if the auto-populated ITC is ₹100 and the taxpayer claims ₹101, the entire screen instantly turns from blue to blood red — as if in a Prashant Niel’s action movie scene. All for a variance of one rupee. Yet when a demand notice running into crores is issued against the very same taxpayer, it is uploaded in silence. No red, no pop-up, no scroll, no blink. The system that screams at a one-rupee excess claim goes mute when the taxpayer’s entire business is at stake. If the technology can be designed to alert the department’s interest so aggressively, why can it not be designed to alert the taxpayer’s interest with equal vigour?
III. The E-mail Argument: Assuming a Taxpayer Who Does Not Exist
The department may say: “We sent an alert by e-mail; it is the taxpayer’s responsibility to check his mails and come to the portal.” This assumes a taxpayer who does not exist in large parts of India. As stated earlier, many taxpayers do not have their own e-mail IDs, and registrations stand on the e-mail IDs of consultants. In a country where even literacy rates remain modest, one cannot presume every taxpayer to be tech-savvy. The other day, in a court, a Member was being assisted by a colleague on how to navigate the appeal module in computer. If those who adjudicate the law require hand-holding on the system, with what justice do we presume that a small trader in a mandal town logs into an e-mail inbox he may not even own?
Even where an e-mail ID exists and belongs to the taxpayer, there remain real possibilities: the mail may be diverted to the spam folder by the mail server; it may be accidentally deleted; or it may simply be missed in the daily flood of messages. Under such circumstances, is it right and justified to hold the taxpayer responsible for delayed replies to notices or delayed filing of appeals — and to visit him with ex parte orders, mandatory pre-deposits, and the guillotine of limitation?
IV. The Haryana Instruction: An Administration That Listened
In this regard, the recent instructions issued by the Haryana Government deserve wholehearted appreciation. By Instruction No. 02/2026/GST-II dated 01.06.2026, the Excise and Taxation Department, Haryana has directed that show cause notices in Form GST DRC-01 and demand orders in Form GST DRC-07 issued under Sections 73, 74, 74A or 122 — though already uploaded and served through the common portal — shall additionally be intimated to the taxpayer by registered post or speed post within fifteen days, with dispatch registers maintained ward-wise and countersigned by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner.
Significantly, the instruction clarifies that the statutory position remains untouched — service continues to be deemed complete on the date the notice is made available on the portal under Section 169(1)(d) read with Section 169(2). In other words, Haryana has not diluted the law; it has supplemented the law with common sense. The legal provision may well remain that an uploaded order is validly served — but what is wrong in also sending a copy by post, so that the taxpayer actually comes to know of it? Nothing in Section 169 prohibits it; indeed, Section 169(1)(b) expressly contemplates registered post as a mode of service. What Haryana has done by instruction, every State — and the Centre — has to emulate.
V. A Lesson from the Home of Technology
If we look at the United States — and particularly at California, the home of Silicon Valley, where artificial intelligence was born and driverless cars now ply the roads — tax demand notices are still sent by post. Do we seriously believe that the American tax administration is technologically less advanced than ours? Why, then, do they prefer the humble postal notice?
The answer is simple. Technology is useful, but it must serve the citizen, not ambush him. A posted notice reaches the taxpayer without requiring any positive action on his part — he is at the receiving end, and he receives it. He then comes to know of the proceeding and can respond, electronically or otherwise, as he pleases. An uploaded notice, by contrast, requires the taxpayer to go on fishing expedition looking for his own notices in the corner of a portal that gives him no hint of such notice. The former is communication; the latter is concealment dressed up as compliance.
VI. Conclusion
I genuinely feel for the Indian taxpayer, doing business in such a hostile procedural environment. We take pride in announcing that the department collects over ₹1.5 lakh crores in GST every month. I feel that this collection is a tribute to the resilience and honesty of the Indian taxpayer, achieved in spite of the system’s indifference to him — not because of any solicitude shown by it. If the taxpayer can fund the exchequer so handsomely, the least the administration owes him is the assurance that when it proceeds against him, he will actually come to know of it.
The law on valid service may be settled. But the question of effective service — service that actually informs — is wide open, and it deserves a sympathetic re-examination by the GST Council, the CBIC, and the State administrations. Haryana has shown the way. A postage stamp costs a few rupees; an ex parte order costs a taxpayer his business. The choice should not be difficult.
*****
The author is an indirect tax practitioner based in Hyderabad. Views are personal.
Author Bio
