Kerala High Court Upholds Portal Upload as Valid GST Notice Service

By CA Sandeep Kanoi Goods and Services Tax Judiciary February 10, 2026

TaxGuru Citation: 2026 taxguru.in 2079
Case Name: T.K Navas Vs Commissioner of Goods And Service Taxes Department (Kerala High Court)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Courts: All High Courts, Kerala High Court

Already Upgraded? Log in.

T.K Navas Vs Commissioner of Goods And Service Taxes Department (Kerala High Court)

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017 on the ground of alleged improper service of notice. The petitioner contended that although the notice was uploaded on the GST portal, it was not served through the modes prescribed under Section 169(1)(a), (b), or (c), and therefore the consequential order violated principles of natural justice. The Court examined Section 169 of the Act, which provides multiple alternative modes of service, including making the notice available on the common portal under Section 169(1)(d). It held that the statute recognises service through any one of the prescribed modes as valid. Relying on a prior Division Bench decision, the Court reiterated that uploading a notice on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service. Since the notice was made available on the portal, the requirement of service was satisfied. Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, while preserving the petitioner’s right to pursue statutory remedies available under the law.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner being aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, issued by the 3^rd respondent under Section 73 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order was passed without proper notice to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the 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 under Section 169(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the SGST/CGST Act and therefore, the fact that the notice was uploaded in the portal by itself cannot be treated as a proper service of notice. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, Ext.P5 order has to be interfered with for violation of principles of natural justice.