Harish Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court considered a writ petition challenging an impugned order dated 30.12.2025 and the consequential recovery notice dated 06.02.2026 in DRC-13 issued under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments, 2017. The petitioner submitted that it had participated in the proceedings before the respondent but contended that the order had not been physically communicated.
The petitioner relied upon the Madras High Court’s earlier decision in Sahulhameed vs. the Commercial Tax Officer in W.P.(MD) Nos.26481 of 2024 etc., batch, dated 06.01.2025. In that decision, the Court had considered Section 169 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 and Rule 52 of the TNGST Rules, 1959, and had set aside assessment orders while directing the respective petitioners to file replies and thereafter receive an opportunity of hearing.
In the present case, however, the Court examined Section 169(1), which provides several modes for serving decisions, orders, summons, notices and other communications under the GST Act or Rules. These include direct delivery, registered or speed post or courier, communication through the registered email address, and making the communication available on the common portal. The Court specifically noted that, in the present case, the order had in fact been uploaded on the common portal.
