Introduction
I received a message from my client, he was extremely stressed asking me, “Sir, the GST officer has now requested a fresh response to certain points of the notice, particularly regarding ITC reversal, He is insisting that the ITC be reversed immediately and has also asked that the reply be sent through WhatsApp”
Earlier, we had already addressed the issue and satisfied the officer. However, considering the WhatsApp message by the officer that is the informal mode of communication, I decided to research the validity of service of notice or communication through WhatsApp under GST Act, 2017 to offer the client proper legal consultancy.
Before we move forward, let’s discuss when is a notice deemed served under GST?
Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 deals with the valid service of a notice or order, it is stated that a notice is considered duly served when it is delivered by hand, either personally or through a messenger, or by post, specifically through registered post, speed post, or courier to the last known address. It may also be served by sending it to the registered email address of the taxpayer or by uploading it on the GST common portal. If these methods fail, service by publication in a newspaper in the locality is permitted. As a last resort, if none of the above modes are practicable, affixing the notice at the taxpayer’s place of business or residence is considered valid.
Looking at above “bolded words”, you might be thinking WhatsApp is also a messenger?
While as I stated above, section 169 does permit the service of notice “by hand or through a messenger”, the term “messenger” here refers to a human agent, that could be a tax officer, staff member, or authorized representative, who physically delivers a hard copy of the notice to the taxpayer.
Also, the WhatsApp messages do not meet the evidentiary requirements under the CGST Act, 2017. Even with blue ticks, it cannot be presumed that the taxpayer has received and understood the contents.
Even in the significant judgment Mathai M.V. vs. Senior Enforcement Officer & Anr. of Kerala high court focused mainly on such case, Have High court here, ruled in favour of taxpayer? Whether the service of notice via WhatsApp constitute valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017? Let’s discuss this in detail.
{Citations of the case: Kerala High Court in Mathai M.V. vs. The Senior Enforcement Officer & Anr., W.A. No. 973 of 2025 (Ker. H.C., June 24, 2025)}
Maybe when you read the heading, it may seem like a article on such a small issue? Just about how the notice was sent, but when we deeply see the issue, it raises serious concerns about misuse of power, denial of fair hearing, and possible chances of bribery in GST enforcement.
This case Kerala High Court in Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer & Anr. involved the confiscation of a transport vehicle allegedly used for carrying sullage or wastewater without proper documentation.
First of all, let’s discuss the background of this case
It is a recent judgement where, the truck owned by the taxpayer was detained on 25 November 2024 by State GST officers. In this case, a confiscation order was passed under Section 130 of CGST Act on 21 December 2024.
Section 130 empowers GST authorities to confiscate goods and the vehicle that is used for transporting such goods if there is intent to evade tax or Goods are supplied or received in contravention of GST provisions, but law mandates issuance of a show cause notice and providing an opportunity of being heard to the owner or person concerned before confiscation, followed by a reasoned order by adjudicating authority, skipping any of these steps will void the action.
The taxpayer challenged this order, arguing that he was not aware of any GST violation, he had not received any prior notice as per Section 130 as we discussed above, also he was not given an opportunity of being heard, which violated the principles of natural justice.
In response, the authorities claimed that the notices were sent via WhatsApp, also the driver was questioned, and his statement was recorded. Hence this confiscation process was completed and could not be reopened.
Legal issues that were raised through this case:
Some issues like whether WhatsApp is a valid mode of serving notice under Section 169 of CGST Act? Secondly, whether confiscation proceedings under Section 130 can be sustained without formal notice and opportunity of hearing, thirdly, whether procedural violations create a chance for misuse of law or even corruption?
High court’s observations in this case
The division bench of chief justice Nitin Jamdar and justice Basant Balaji observed that WhatsApp is not a valid mode under Section 169 of CGST Act, also the use of WhatsApp was temporarily allowed during COVID-19 pandemic, but that exception was no longer applicable, hence confiscation without notice and hearing is a violation of natural justice.
High court stated that the absence of proper notice makes the entire proceedings completely null and void, this matter was then remanded to the adjudicating authority to be decided afresh, only after issuing proper notice and granting personal hearing.
Legal analysis
WhatsApp or messaging apps are not recognized modes unless specifically notified which they are not, post-pandemic.
However, there was no formal CGST Rule or Notification under Section 169 that expressly authorised WhatsApp as a mode of statutory notice service, but The CBIC, through various press releases, circulars, and internal instructions, encouraged use of digital communication such as emails, SMS, online uploads during COVID-19 to ensure continuity in administration.
Even courts also showed judicial tolerance for service via WhatsApp in exceptional circumstances, as seen in cases like Kross Television India Pvt Ltd v. Vikhyat Chitra Production (Bombay HC) which upheld WhatsApp as valid for interim relief in civil disputes, but this was not specific to GST or statutory notices under Section 169.
Violation of natural justice
The rule of audi alteram partem which means “hear the other side” is a foundational principle of Indian administrative law.
In the above case, the owner of the vehicle was never been served with a valid notice, only the driver’s statement was recorded and the confiscation was based on ex-parte proceedings, amounting to gross procedural irregularity.
This not only compromises these legal provisions of GST, but looking other way, it also opens the door for misuse of power, arbitrary penalties, as well as harassment.
Allowing WhatsApp create opportunity for bribery?
In this case while the Court didn’t directly mention corruption, but not following the proper process by department may create an opportunity for bribery.
As when authorities bypass formal channels and rely on informal communication (like WhatsApp), it creates discretionary windows, as the notices can be sent to the taxpayer in an untraceable manner, in case the taxpayer fails to act might be dueto any reason then the authorities gain grounds for seizure/confiscation. Hence, this puts immense pressure on transporters or owners to settle the matter “off the record”.
Secondly, when the vehicles are detained, the owners may be convinced to give bribes to release vehicles without challenging in court. As for businesses, the longer detentions, may create higher financial losses, So, lack of transparency pushes taxpayers into unofficial settlements.
Thirdly, WhatsApp lacks delivery acknowledgments as mandated under the Act, unlike speed post or portal uploads. This non-traceable service creates ambiguity and a situation for extortion under the veil of procedure.
Role of Taxpayers in this case
Taxpayers should demand a proper notice and ensure that all notices and communications should be properly addressed, sent through permitted modes as well as uploaded on the GST portal to create a trail.
They should maintain documentary proofs which means they should keep records of all the communications with GST officers, including Emails, notices on the portal as well as courier receipts.
Any confiscation, penalty or proceeding which is initiated without the valid service of notice or without giving a proper opportunity of being herd can be challenged legally, currently High courts are only the option but soon we can expect GSTAT for the same.
In case of suspicious actions, bribe demands or irregular service of notice, one must record evidence (screenshots, audio messages) and lodge complaints with CBIC Vigilance, GST Ombudsman, or CVC etc
When I researched on it, I felt this judgment reaffirms a key message stating “Informal processes cannot override statutory safeguards”
While these tools and technology like WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook etc may proof to be convenient, but they cannot replace legality and enforcement as per the law especially when using powers like seizure and confiscation, it must follow strict procedural compliance to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s decision in Mathai M.V. is a landmark precedent that should guide both tax administrators and taxpayers. It underscores the need for procedural integrity in tax enforcement and highlights how procedural violations even seemingly technical ones threaten not only legal validity but also give a chance of corruption.
Disclaimer: This is not a legal advice or any consultancy by me, it’s just an analysis of case law which I came across during my work.
***
Author can be contacted at aman.rajput@mail.ca.in
Author Bio
