Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited Vs Commercial State Tax Officer

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

All the writ petitions have been filed challenging the respective ex parte assessment orders/assessment orders passed by the concerned Assessing Officers.

2. Brief Facts of the cases: 

2.1 In writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.3119, 4015 & 5038 of 2025, the petitioners had filed their reply, however, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided by the respondent prior to the passing of assessment orders. Hence, the said assessment orders were challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the said orders had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

2.2 In writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.3084 & 4032 of 2025, the appeals were preferred by the petitioners against the assessment orders, however, the said appeals were rejected by the respondents on the aspect of limitation. Now, the challenge is made only against the ex parte assessment orders.

2.3 In W.P.No.5055 of 2025, the ex parte assessment order was passed subsequent to the suo motto cancellation of GST Registration by the respondent, whereas, in W.P.No.5806 of 2025 is concerned, the GST Registration of the petitioner was cancelled based on the voluntary request made by the petitioner. Subsequent to the said cancellation, the impugned ex parte assessment order was passed by the respondent.

2.4 In all the other writ petitions, being unaware of the show cause notices, the petitioners were unable to file their reply. Under these circumstances, the assessment orders have been passed in ex parte without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners.

3. Submissions made on behalf of the petitioners:

3.1 Mr.Joseph Prabhakar, Mr.S.Durairaj, Mr.G.Natarajan, Mr.K.Sankaranarayan, Mr.S.Sathyanarayan, Mr.N.V.Balaji & Mr.V.Sundaresan, all the learned counsel had advanced their arguments on behalf of the petitioners.

3.2 According to the petitioners, they were unable to participate in the proceedings for the following reasons:

i. In majority of cases, the Show Cause Notices were uploaded by the respondents in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column instead of “View Notices” column and hence, though the petitioners had occasions to visit the portal twice in a month for filing their monthly returns, the said show cause notices were remained unnoticed, due to which, the petitioners were unable to participate in the assessment proceedings.

ii. In some matters, the petitioners had nominated the Consultants for handling the GST matter, such as filing the returns, responding to the notices, etc. Since the said consultants had failed to follow up the portal, they were unaware of the assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The said proceedings came to the knowledge of the petitioners only when the recovery notices were issued by the respondent.

iii. In some cases, the employee, who was entrusted by the petitioner for handling GST matters, was indisposed or left the job and hence, they were unable to participate in the assessment proceedings before the respondent- Department.

iv) In few cases, the petitioners are senior citizens and hence, either due to the lack of knowledge about computer operations or due to ill-health, they had failed to follow up the matters and unable to file their reply for the show cause notice issued by the respondent.

3.3 By referring the provisions of Section 169 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called as “GST Act”), the respective learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in all these cases, the respondents had sent the show cause notices vide the mode of service as provided in Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, i.e., making it available in portal and they had not even tried any other alternative modes of services as mandated therein.

3.4 Further, they would contend that when there is no response for the notices, viz., DRC-01A, ASMT-10 or DRC-01 and their subsequent reminders, the Officers were supposed to have adopted a different mode of service for sending the said notices and reminders to the Assessees and there is no bar for them to do so. According to the petitioners, if the respondent had adopted other modes of services, especially, the mode, which was prescribed in Section 169(1)(b) of the GST Act, i.e., Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), definitely, the issue of passing the ex parte impugned order would not arisen and in such case, the respondent would have passed a detailed speaking order, so that, the precious time of the Assessees and the Officers would have been saved.

3.5 By referring the provisions of Section 169(2) of the GST Act, Mr.Joseph Prabakaran, learned counsel would submit that the sub­section (2) implies three terms, viz., “tendering”, “publishing” and “affixing”. The term “tendering” relates to Section 169(1)(a), the term “affixing” relates to Section 169(1)(f) and the term “publishing” relates to Section 169(1)(e) of the GST Act. As far as the provisions of Section 169(1)(b) is concerned, it deals with the service of notice vide RPAD, whereas, Section 169(1)(d) only talks about making it available in the portal.

3.6 Hence, he would contend that the legal fiction mandated in sub-section (2) of Section 169 has no application to the provision of Section 169(1)(d), i.e., making it available in common portal. Therefore, he would submit that the said mode of service is neither sufficient nor effective and thus, in order to comply with Section 169(2) of the GST Act, necessarily the respondents have to send the notices through other modes as well.

3.7 Further, he would submit that in terms of Section 107 of GST Act, a tax payer can prefer an appeal against the assessment order within a period of 3 months from the date on which the said assessment order was communicated. Here, the word “communicated” means serving the assessment order to the Assessee physically, not by simply uploading it through the common portal. In this regard, a comparison has also been made between Form GST DRC-01 and Form GST DRC-07. In terms of Rule 142(1) and 142(5) of the GST Rules, the Form GST DRC-01 has to mandatorily contain the brief facts, grounds, tax dues, interest and other penalty and on the other hand, in Form GST DRC-07, the order, which has to be uploaded, will only contain summary of the order, i.e., only the tax amount, interest, penalty. The detailed order would not be made available in the common portal. Rule 142(5) mandates the uploading of the summary order only, whereas the detailed order has to be communicated to the petitioner, based on which the appeal has to be preferred.

3.8 Further, he had advanced his arguments by making comparison of GST Act and erstwhile Tax Acts, viz., Value Added Tax Act, Income Tax Act, etc., with regard to the sending notices for all practical purpose in the said Acts. He had also extensively argued on the aspect of “tendering” and filed his detailed written submissions with regard to the same.

3.9 Mr.G.Natarajan, learned counsel has referred provisions of Sections 11, 12 & 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter called as “IT Act”) and has extensively argued on the aspect of receipt of the notices, orders and other communications, which were uploaded by the respondents in the common portal.

3.10 Both the parties, i.e., petitioners as well as respondents, in unison, had fairly agreed that the common portal is the computer resource. However, according to the petitioners, the said common portal cannot be considered as a “designated computer resource”. Hence, in terms of Section 13(2)(a)(ii) of the IT Act, in absence of a designated computer resource, the receipt of the electronic records will occur only when the said record is retrieved by the Assessee and not when the record was uploaded by the Department. Therefore, he would contend that though the communications were uploaded in the portal, since the said portal is not a designated computer resource of an Assessee, the receipt of the electronic records will occur only when it was retrieved by the assessee. In such case, mere uploading of the notices would not amount to serving of the same to the Assessee. Hence, it is clear that without serving the notices in proper manner and without providing any opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned assessment orders came to be passed by the respondents, which is violation of principles of natural justice.

3.11 Therefore, all the respective learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that all these ex parte impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Hence, they requests this Court to remand the matters back to the concerned respondents for fresh consideration.

4. Submissions made by the respondents:

4.1 Per contra, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, in unison, would submit that the provisions of Section 169 of the GST Act provides different modes of services, which are alternative to one another and hence, it would be sufficient if any one of the modes of services is followed by the respondent.

4.2 In these cases, the notices had been uploaded in the common portal in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act. Once the notices were uploaded in common portal, it would amount to be tendered and communicated to the Assessees and the same is deemed to be received by the Assessees.

4.3 Further, they would submit that the petitioners will have occasion to visit the common portal twice in a month for filing their monthly returns. However, in spite of the same, now they are making a plea as if they were not aware of the notices, which were uploaded in the portal and the same is incorrect. The Statute also mandates the petitioners to view the portal and verify as to whether any assessment proceedings are pending or not. When such being the case, it is not fair on the part of the petitioner to make a plea that they are not aware of the notices, since it was uploaded in the common portal.

4.4 They had also referred to a circular, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2025, and would submit that vide the said circular, the Department has made it very clear that the notices will be uploaded in the “Additional Notices and Orders” Column instead of “View Notices” column. Therefore, he would contend that the petitioner cannot take a stand that they were unaware of the notices since the same was uploaded in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column.

4.5 In support of their contention, they had referred to the following judgements:

i. Pushpam Reality vs. State Tax Officer, Hosur, reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 9102

ii. Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja vs. Superintendent of Central Tax, reported in 2022 SCC Online Mad 8986

iii. New Grace Automech Products Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer, Hosur reported in 2023 SCC Online Mad 8153

4.6 Further, he would submit that the legal fiction in terms of the IT Act, provides that there is only single interface between the tax payers and the Revenue Department. Hence, every Assessee is required to access the GST common portal from the date of application of Registration till the cancellation for all the practical purposes, viz., filing returns, claiming refund or for filing appeal, revision or rectification, etc. In this regard, he referred Section 146 of the GST Act, which recognise the GST common portal. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder.

“Section 146.Common Portal.-

The Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, notify the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal for facilitating registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, computation and settlement of integrated tax, electronic way bill and for carrying out such other functions and for such purposes as may be prescribed.”

4.7 Further, they had referred Section 169 of the GST Act and Sections 12 & 13 of the IT Act and submitted that S.169(2) creates a deeming fiction in regard to date of service only in respect to modes prescribed in

S.169(1)(a) “by giving or tendering”,

S.169(1)(b) “by registered post or speed post or courier”,

S.169(1)(e) “by publication in a newspaper” and

S.169(1)(f) “by affixure”.

4.8 The reason for non-inclusion of S.169(1)(c) & 169(1)(d) within deeming fiction of S. 169(2) is that the service of notice/orders in cases where service is effected by email or by uploading to the Common Portal, service happens instantaneously, i.e., the moment the said email has been sent by the Assessing Authority (originator of the email) or when the said Assessing Authority uploads the notice/order on the Common Portal of the assessee. The method of service of an electronic record through an electronic platform such as the Common Portal is dealt with under S.12 and S.13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Therefore, there is no necessity to include a provision under the Act to give a deeming fiction with respect to service of electronic records through email or Common Portal since it is dealt with in the specialised law dealing with the subject, viz., the Information and Technology Act, 2000.

4.9 As compared to the modes of service envisaged in S. 169(1)(a), (b), (e), and (f) where there is a time lag between when the notice/order is out of the control of the originator and when it is actually received by the recipient, necessitating a deeming fiction with respect to the date and time of service, the modes of service envisaged in S.169(1)(c) and (d) are instantaneous, i.e.. the assessee receives the notice/order immediately once the Assessing Authority sends the email or uploads the notice/order on the Common Portal.

4.10 It is further submitted that although the Act does not mandate intimation of the service of notices or orders on the registered email or SMS of an assessee, the Respondent does the same out of abundant caution. An automated SMS and email alert is sent to the mobile number and email address provided by the assessee at the time of registration as required under Rules 8 & 9 of the Rules as soon as any notice or order is uploaded on the Common Portal. In many cases assessees have stated that they provided the phone number and email address of their GST consultant, and such GST consultant’s mobile number and email address would have been provided for multiple assessees. In most cases the GST Consultant has failed to keep track of the SMS/email alert in respect to the concerned assessee. The GST consultant is an authorised agent of the assessee, and the GST consultant’s neglect and failure to take appropriate steps should be binding consultant is that of the assessee. The mistake or wrong choice of GST on the assessee since the choice of the consultants by assessees should not be the reason to detriment the Respondent’s right to recover taxes due to it by negating or altering the scheme of the Act with respect to service of SCNs or orders.

4.11 In any event, the GST Acts and Common Portal have been in force since August 2017. After nearly 7 years of accessing the Common Poral at least twice every month, assessees cannot claim they are unfamiliar with the Common Portal.

4.12 The IT Act uses the term “designated computer resource” while determining date and time of service of electronic records through an electronic. In this context it becomes imperative to understand (i) what is “computer resource” and (ii) the process by which a computer resource becomes a “designated computer resource”.

4.13 S.2(k) of the IT Act defines a “computer resource” as “computer computer system, computer network, data, computer data base or software”. It is of note that the scheme of the IT Act offers an expansive definition of the term computer resource capable of encompassing within its ambit text-messages, email networks, and any computer network created for a specific purpose.

4.14 The IT Act neither defines the term “designated computer resource”, nor does it prescribe the manner in which a computer resource becomes a designated computer resource. Thus, to understand what is a designated computer resource and the manner in which a computer resource becomes a designated computer resource one must turn to common parlance and to judicial pronouncements on the subject how must be understood in the manner in which it was intended by Parliament.

4.15 Further, they explained with regard to the designated computer resource and about the manner to designate a computer resource, which reads as follows:

i. Designated Computer Resource is not defined under the IT Act Therefore, it is necessary to fall back on the commonly understood meaning of “designated” along with the statutory definition of computer resource.

ii. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term designate in its verb form as “to appoint to an office or function” or “to nominate for some role”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term designate in its adjective form as “to mark out to a specific position”. The underlying thrust of the definition is to clearly identify someone or something for a particular purpose.

4.16 Thus, they would contend that the only thing that has to be examined is as to whether between the petitioners appointed, nominated, marked out, or identified a particular computer resource. Upon close examination of the nature of the GST legislative framework, it will be found that not only does the legislative framework designates a computer resource, but the petitioners have also designated a computer resource. Thus, there is both designation by operation of law and designation by an act of petitioners.

4.17 Further, they have referred Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and would submit that the general rule governing the time of receipt of electronic records is found in S.13(2) of the IT Act. It notes that when the addressee has designated a computer resource for the purpose of receiving electronic records, receipt of such electronic record occurs at the time when the electronic record enters the designated electronic resource. The date and time of retrieval of the electronic record by the recipient is not relevant to determine the date and time of service to a designated computer resource.

4.18 Only if the electronic record is sent to a computer resource other than a computer resource so designated, the time of receipt of such electronic record is the time of retrieval by the addressee. For instance, if document is uploaded on the official website of the Commercial Taxes Department, which is not a designated computer resource, then the date of retrieval of the notification may be argued to be the date of knowledge of the notification.

4.19 Since the communication (SCNs and orders) to the various Petitioners were served on the Common Portal, a designated computer resource, S.13(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act applies. The date and time of receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record enters the designated computer resource, i.e., at the time of uploading the SCNs and orders.

4.20 S.169(1)(d) of the Act permits the Assessing Authority to communicate the notices and orders by way of making it available on the Common Portal. The Respondents have gone beyond this statutory mandate and have also sent email and SMS prompts to assessees intimating them that notices/orders have been uploaded to the Common Portal to enable them to promptly check and retrieve the same. Thus, the Respondents have discharged their statutory obligations.

4.21 The notices and orders were served on the assessees through a designated computer Common Portal. Thus, the date and time of service ought to be S.13(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, i.e., when the electronic record enters the designated computer resource or when the notice/order is uploaded on the Common Portal. Thus, service of SCNs and orders on the Common Portal is instantaneous. The limitation period for computing period of appeal under S.107 of the Act must start from the date the order was uploaded on the Common Portal.

4.22 The assessees in the present batch of writ petitions constitute a tiny fraction of the total number of taxpayers to whom SCNs and orders were served on the Common Portal. During the period for April 2024 November 2024, the Respondent Department served a total of 93,351 notices and orders to various assessees on the Common Portal.

4.23 The vast majority of the assessees have acknowledged the service of the SCNs and orders via the Common Portal. Approximately 1,500 assessees aggrieved similar as the assessees in the instant batch of petitions by the service of SCNs and orders via the Common Portal had approached this High Court. Except the handful of petitioners in the instant batch of petitions, all accepted to litigate the orders on before the Appellate Authority on payment of either (1) 10% of the disputed amount, being the statutory deposit for appeal, if the writ petition was filed within the limitation period for appeal, or (ii) 25% of the disputed amount, being a consent order to afford the assessee an opportunity to litigate if the writ petition was filed beyond the limitation period of appeal.

4.24 Only the assessees in the instant batch of petitions continue to agitate against the crystal clear law contained in S.169(1)(d). This Court should not dilute the mandate of the Act for a small fraction of assessees. It is settled jurisprudence in tax law that the difficulty of a few in following the law will not make the law arbitrary or unreasonable.

4.25 Further, in the present batch of writ petitions, there is no challenge to any provision of law particularly S.169 of the GST Act. Therefore reading down S.169 cannot be sought for by the Petitioners. The provision has to be interpreted as it is the clear unambiguous language of S.169 of GST Act will lead only to one possible interpretation that the Assessing Authority has the option to utilise any one of the modes of service set out in S.169(1) in order to serve SCNs and orders upon an assesee. The choice of one mode of service over the other is the choice of the Assessing Officer and is not open to be questioned by an assessee on the ground of hardship and ignorance of the mechanism of the portal.

4.26 In the light of the above submissions, they request this Court for dismissal of the present petitions.

5. I have given conscious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

6. In these cases, the petitioners were aggrieved over the ex parte impugned assessment orders passed by the respondent in violation of principles of natural justice.

7. According to the petitioners, all the notices were uploaded by the respondents in common portal in terms of the Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, which is not a valid mode of service. Further, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that when the other effective modes of services are available, the respondents are supposed to have sent notices through the said alternative modes as well.

8. Arguments were extensively made by referring the provisions of Section 169 & 107 of the GST Act, Rule 142 of GST Rules and Sections 11, 12, 13 of IT Act. By referring the IT Act, it was submitted that the petitioners have not “designated any computer resource” and if no computer resource was “designated”, in terms of Section 13(2)(a)(ii) of the IT Act, the time and place of receipt of electronic records would happen only when the said electronic records were retrieved by the Assessee. Hence, according to the petitioners, they came to know about the notices and original assessment orders only when they retrieved it from the portal and thus, the service will deemed to be completed in terms of the provisions of IT Act, only when the order is retrieved by the petitioner.

9. In these cases, all the petitioners have agreed that the “common portal” is “computer resource”. However, according to them, they have to designate the common portal as “designated computer resource” for sending communications in terms of Section 169 of GST Act, otherwise the service of notice will deemed to be completed only when they retrieved it from the common portal in terms of IT Act.

10. On the other hand, the respondents made a submission that by virtue of legal fiction, the common portal is designated as computer resource of the Assessee. Therefore, in terms of Section 13(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, the moment, on which the electronic records enter the computer resource, would be considered as the time of receipt of the said electronic record by the Assessee. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner cannot rebut the said legal fiction and hence, the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner is not correct.

11. With the aforesaid background, let me analyse the provisions of Section 169 of the GST Act as well as the Section 13 of IT Act. For ready reference, it would be apposite to extract the provisions of Section 169 of the GST Act hereunder:

169. Service of notice in certain circumstances:

(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:–

(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or

b. by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or

c. by sending a communication to his e­mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or

d. by making it available on the common portal; or

e. by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or

f. if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.

2. Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1).

3. When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved.

12. By reading above, it is clear that any decision, order, summons, notices and other communications under the GST Act or Rules made thereunder, shall be served by any one of the modes as prescribed therein. The word “or” has been used immediately after each sub-clause, which means each clause is alternative to each other. Thus, if any one of the modes is adopted by the respondent to send notices, the same would be considered as a sufficient service. Accordingly, the respondents had adopted one of the modes provided in the above provisions, i.e., “to make it available in common portal” in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act and hence, the same has to be considered as “sufficient service”.

13. Now, the common aspect, which has to be looked into in the present cases is as to whether making it available in the common portal shall be deemed to be served in terms of Section 169(2) of the GST Act, i.e., either by tendering or publishing or affixing.

14. As per the provisions of sub-section (1), in terms of Section 169(1)(a), the notice has to be served by way of “tendering”; in terms of Section 169(1)(b), the notice has to be served by way of “RPAD”; in terms of Section 169(1)(e), the notice has to be served by way of “publication”; in terms of Section 169(1)(f), the notice has to be served by way of “affixing” it at the last known place of business or residence of the Assessee. However, the applicability of provisions of Section 169(2) for the provisions of Section 169(1)(c) & (d), i.e., uploading the notices in portal or sending to e-mail id of an Assessee, was already dealt with by this Court vide the judgement of this Court in Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja vs. Superintendent of Central Tax (referred supra), wherein it has been held as follows:

“36. This is countered by the petitioner by drawing attention to section 169(2), which deploys the terms “tendered” “published” or “affixed”. Thus, according to the petitioner, the absence of the term “uploaded” as a mode of service, is conscious, and should not be taken to be proper service.

37. I find no merit in this argument. In my view, making an order available on the Common Portal would tantamount to “tendering” of that order to the recipient. That apart, I am also unable to ascribe any conscious intention on the part of the Legislature to exclude uploading as one of the modes of service. This argument is rejected.”

15. At this juncture, it would be apposite to extract the provisions of Section 13(1) & (2) of the IT Act, hereunder:

13. Time and place of despatch and receipt of electronic record.—

1. Save as otherwise agreed to between the originator and the addressee, the despatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator.

2. Save as otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee, the time of receipt of an electronic record shall be determined as follows, namely:—

(a) if the addressee has designated a computer resource for the purpose of receiving electronic records,—

(i) receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record enters the designated computer resource; or

(ii) if the electronic record is sent to a computer resource of the addressee that is not the designated computer resource, receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record is retrieved by the addressee;

(b) if the addressee has not designated a computer resource along with specified timings, if any, receipt occurs when the electronic record enters the computer resource of the addressee.

16. By reading the above provisions, it is clear that this provision deals with the aspect of time and place of despatch or receipt of electronic records. However, the provisions of Section 169 of the GST Act does not provide explicitly anything with regard to the time and place of despatch or receipt of electronic records, which were sent vide the modes as prescribed in Section 169(1)(c) & (d) of the GST Act. Thus, Section 169 of the GST Act has to be read with Section 13(2) of the IT Act.

17. A reading of the provisions of Section 13(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act makes it clear that if the Assessee has “designated any computer resource” for the purpose of receiving the electronic records, the receipt of the said electronic records will occur when it enters into the designated computer resource. On the other hand, Section 13(2)(a)(ii) of the IT Act deals with the aspect that if the notices were uploaded in any computer resource, which was not designated by the addressee, the receipt will occur only at the time when the electronic records is retrieved by the said addressee.

18. There is no dispute on the aspect that the common portal or the e-mail id of the concerned Assessee is the computer resource. Both the parties have no dispute on the said aspect. Now, the only dispute that has to be decided by this Court is as to whether the common portal is the “designated computer resource” or not.

19. According to the respondents, by virtue of legal fiction, the common portal is designated computer resource for the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioners have submitted that they have not specified the common portal as designated computer resource and hence, the receipt of documents will occur only when it was retrieved by the Assessee in terms of Section 13(2)(a)(ii) of the IT Act.

20. There is no dispute on the aspect that by virtue of legal fiction, the common portal is a computer resource for both the petitioners as well as the respondents. The word “computer resource” has been defined in the IT Act at Section 2(k), which reads as follows:

“2(k) -computer resource means computer, computer system, computer network, data, computer data base or software;”

21. However, there is no precise definition for the term “designated computer resource”. Therefore, we have to look into the meaning of the term “designated” in Oxford English Dictionary, whereby it has been defined as follows:

“The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term designate in its verb form as “to appoint to an office or function” or “to nominate for some role”.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term designate in its adjective form as “to mark out to a specific position”.

The underlying thrust of the definition is to clearly identify someone or something for a particular purpose.”

22. Therefore, by reading the above definition, the word “designated” is nothing but to “appoint” or “nominate” or “mark out” or “identify” a particular computer resource.

23. It is very pertinent to point out here that there are occasions for the petitioners/Assessees to designate the computer resource other than the common portal, for example, when the Assessee is making an application for cancellation of GST Registration, they will provide an e-mail ID and address to the respondents for the purpose of future communication and thereafter, all the communications have to be sent only to the designated computer resource, i.e., e-mail id provided by the Assessee or other addressee. The said situation would fall under the category of Section 13(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, i.e., the receipt would occur when the electronic record enters the computer resource.

24. On the other hand, if the respondents are communicating to other computer resources, viz., uploading in common portal, even after the designation of specific computer resource by the petitioner, the said situation would fall under the category of Section 13(2)(a)(ii) of the IT Act, i.e., the receipt would occur only upon retrieval of the electronic records by the Assessee.

25. Therefore, as far as the application of the provisions of Section 13(2)(a)(i)&(ii) of the IT Act are concerned, when an Assessee had designated a computer resource, the respondents are supposed to have send all the communications to the said computer resource in terms of Section 13(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act. If the respondent failed to do so, the provisions of Section 13(2)(a)(ii) of the IT Act will apply. In other words, if the respondent sent the communication to the computer resource, which was designated by the Assessee, the provisions of Section 13(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act would apply, i.e., the receipt will occur immediately when the electronic records enter the computer resource. On the other hand if the respondent sent the communications to the other computer resources, even when a computer source was designated by the Assessee, the provisions of Section 13(2)(a)(ii) of the IT Act will apply, i.e., the receipt will occur only when the electronic records were retrieved by the Assessee.

26. However, it would be apposite to extract the provisions of Section 13(2)(b) of the IT Act, which reads as follows:

“13(2)(a)…….. 

(b) if the addressee has not designated a computer resource along with specified timings, if any, receipt occurs when the electronic record enters the computer resource of the addressee.”

27. In terms of the above provisions, if the Assessee has not designated any computer resource along with the specified timings, the receipt of the documents occurs when the electronic record enters the computer resource of the Addressee. The said situation will come into picture if the Assessee has failed to provide any designated computer resource.

28. In the present case, there is no dispute on the aspect that the common portal is the computer resource. By virtue of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, all the communications, notices, orders, etc., will be uploaded in the common portal. In such case, if an Assessee is intend to designate a computer resource for the purpose of receiving the communications, orders, summons, etc., in terms of provisions of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, they can designate the common portal as computer resource, from the date of obtaining of GST Registration until its cancellation. Therefore, if an Assessee nominate the common portal as their designated computer resource, the provisions of Section 13(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act will apply. On the other hand, if he failed to designate any computer resources, the provisions of Section 13(2)(b) will come into picture.

29. Therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act read with Section 13(2)(a)(i) & 13(2)(b) of the IT Act, it is crystal clear that once if the notices, orders and other communications are uploaded in the common portal, the receipt would occur immediately when the electronic records enter the said common portal, despite the fact that it is designated as computer resource by the Assessee or not.

30. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the common portal is the designated computer resource of the Assessee to send notices, orders, and other communications. In terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act read with Section 13(2)(a) & 13(2)(b) of the IT Act, once notices are uploaded, the receipt of the same occurs when the said notices enter the computer resources of the Assessee.

31. Therefore, by reading the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) & (b) of the IT Act, it is clear that from the date of issuance of GST Registration number to the Assessees until its cancellation, whenever the summons, notices and other communications were uploaded in the common portal, the receipt occurs once when the said electronic records enter into the said common portal, which is the computer resource of the Assessee. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to hold that the uploading of notices, orders and other communications, in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, is a sufficient service.

32. Therefore, for all these reasons, this Court is unable to persuade with the submissions made by the petitioner that the uploaded of the document in common portal is not a sufficient service.

33. In majority of cases, the assessment orders have been passed in ex parte. The grievance of the petitioner was that due to the following reasons, they were unable to file their reply for the show cause notices issued by the respondent:

i. Notice was uploaded in “View Additional Notice and Orders” column;

ii. The petitioners were not well versed with the computer operations

iii. The petitioners are senior citizens;

iv) The employee, who was handling the GST matters, had availed leave or left office of the petitioner;

iv) The consultant, with whom the petitioner had entrusted the GST matters, had failed to view the portal;

34. The aforesaid reasons are expressed by the Assessees for not receiving the communications, which were uploaded by the respondents in the common portal. In the impugned assessment orders, it has been recorded by the respondents that they have uploaded in the common portal, however, no reply was filed by the petitioner and in spite of the issuance of reminder notice for personal hearing, none of the petitioners have participated in the personal hearing before the respondent.

35. Hence, it is clear that though no responses were received for the show cause notices, which were uploaded in the common portal, the respondent had continued to upload the reminder notices also in the same portal.

36. Section 169 of the GST Act makes it clear that the service may be effected by virtue of 5 different modes, each one is alternative to one another and the service shall be effected by any one of the modes as prescribed therein. This aspect was elaborately discussed by this Court in New Grace Automech Products Pvt. Ltd., vs. State Tax Officer (referred supra).

37. The respondents, being well aware of the fact the mode of service adopted by them is not effective but only sufficient in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, had proceeded to pass ex parte assessment order. Normally, when a mode adopted by the respondents is not effective, they should have explored the possibilities by sending notices through other modes of services as prescribed therein. There is no bar for the respondent to do so. When such being the case, this Court is unable to understand as to why these Assessing officers had repeatedly sent all the notices, reminders, etc., through ineffective mode of service.

38. This Court expects the respondents to send notice vide a mode of service, which is sufficient as well as effective. In this case, there is no dispute on the aspect that the respondent has issued the notices by adopting the mode as prescribed at Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, but being well aware of the fact that the mode of service adopted by them was not effective, they proceeded to pass the ex parte assessment orders and they had not even made any attempt to send the notices by way of alternative modes of services.

39. Once if no response was received for the notices, viz., ASMT-10, DRC-01A, DRC-01, etc., which were uploaded in the common portal by the respondents, atleast they have to send the subsequent reminders by way of RPAD. If any one notice is received by the Assesee, he cannot make a plea that they were unaware of the notices, which were uplaoded in the common portal. Thus, this Court suggests the respondent to atleast send the subsequent reminders by virtue of RPAD prior to the passing of assessment order, so that, the precious time of the Assessees as well as the Officers would have been saved. Due to the failure on the part of the respondent to take such conscious decision while issuing notices and passing the assessment orders, they made the Assessees to knock the doors of this Court, by which, the precious time of this Court is also being wasted. Further, the Assessing Officers also not have to do duplication of their works once again.

40. As far as this Court is concerned, the act of the respondents in these cases will only be considered as an empty formality, by which no useful purpose was achieved. Therefore, this Court is inclined to hold that the service effected by the respondents is sufficient but not effective. If the service of notices made by the respondents was sufficient as well as effective, for example, if they adopted the RPAD mode of service or any other modes as stated in Section 169 of the GST Act, as stated above, the notices were deemed to be served to the Assessees. If the Assessee had not responded for the notices, which were sent vide RPAD or other modes, in addition to uploading in common portal, the respondent shall proceed to pass ex parte orders, in which case, the petitioner cannot take a stand that the ex parte assessment order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Thereafter, only recourse available to the petitioner is to file an appeal against the assessment order. At any cost, the sending of notices by RPAD cannot be dispensed since the Statute provides it as one of the alternative modes of services to the Assesee. Whenever a service is not effective, certainly, the respondent has to follow the alternative modes of service.

41. For all these reasons, this Court is inclined to set aside the ex parte assessment orders. However, since the mode adopted by the respondent is sufficient mode, the petitioner had chances to view the portal and participate in the proceedings, but they had failed to do so. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the fault is on both the petitioner as well as the respondent and thus, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders on terms.

42. As far as the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.3119, 4015 & 5038 of 2025 are concerned, though the reply was filed by the petitioner, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided by the respondent prior to the passed of impugned orders. Normally, when the respondent is intend to pass any adverse orders, they should have provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in terms of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. However, in this case, no such opportunity was provided and thus, it is clear that the impugned order came to be passed not only in contrary to the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act but also in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the said impugned orders without any conditions.

43. As far as the writ petition in W.P.No.5806 of 2025 is concerned, the impugned order was passed subsequent to the cancellation of GST Registration based on the request made by the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner would have provided their e-mail id for further communications and hence, the provisions of Section 13(2)(a)(ii) of the IT Act would apply. In spite of the same, the notices were uploaded by the respondent in the common portal. Since the petitioner had no occasion to view the portal after the said cancellation, the said notices remained unnoticed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondent.

44. As far as the writ petition in W.P.No.5055 of 2025 is concerned, the GST Registration was cancelled suo motto by the Department and not upon the request made by the petitioner. In such case, the petitioner was supposed to have verified the portal as provided in the GST Act. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondents.

45. As far as the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.3084 & 4032 of 2025 are concerned, the petitioners had already preferred the appeals against the assessment orders. Since the appeals were filed beyond the period of limitation, the same were rejected by the respondents. However, now the challenge is made only with regard to the ex parte assessment orders. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the said impugned orders subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondent.

46. In all other writ petitions, the petitioners were unaware of the notices uploaded by the respondents in the common portal. In such case, as stated above, the fault is on both the petitioner and the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the said assessment orders, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondent.

47. In fine, this Court passes the following orders:

i. The impugned orders pertaining to W.P.Nos.3119, 4015 & 5038 of 2025 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the concerned Assessing Officers for fresh consideration without any condition;

ii. The impugned order pertaining to W.P.No.5806 of 2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

iii. The impugned orders pertaining to all the other writ petitions are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioners shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the concerned Assessing Officers, in each case, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

iv. The setting aside of all the impugned orders will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.

v. Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file a reply along with supportive documents within a period of three weeks from the date of payment as stated above;

vi. Thereupon, the respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall hear the petitioner in full and decide the matter in accordance with law

vii) Insofar as the Bank Attachment Notice, if any, is concerned, it is needless to state that once the impugned order is set aside, the Bank Attachment Order can no longer survive and the same has to be jettisoned by the respondent. Thus, the respondent is directed to issue appropriate communication in that regard on the petitioner’s Banker to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner forthwith

48. With the above directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.