GST authorities must use effective alternative service when portal notices elicit no response.

The petitioner challenged the respondent’s order dated 4 April 2024 and its accompanying GST DRC-07 summary.

The petitioner asserted that the show-cause notice and personal-hearing notice had only been uploaded to the GST Portal, and that no physical copies were served; the impugned order was also uploaded without physical service.

The petitioner further raised an issue concerning an input tax credit (ITC) claim barred by limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and relied on a common order dated 17 October 2024 in W.P. Nos. 25081 of 2023 and connected matters.

The petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand in exchange for reconsideration of the remaining issues; the respondent accepted that a remand could be ordered on that condition.

1. Whether the impugned order should be quashed insofar as it concerns the petitioner’s ITC claim barred by limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.

2. Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the other issues remitted for fresh consideration because the petitioner alleged that notices were not effectively served and was not given an opportunity to respond or be heard.

Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 governs the time limit for claiming ITC; the Court applied its prior common order dated 17 October 2024 in W.P. Nos. 25081 of 2023 and connected matters to the limitation issue, as described in the judgment.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, reasoning that where the taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded on the GST Portal and the statute provides alternative modes of service, the authority should adopt an effective mode of service rather than repeatedly relying only on portal uploads.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s submission that the notices had been uploaded to the GST Portal without physical service and observed that the respondent had not received a reply. Given the availability of alternative statutory modes of service, the Court considered effective service necessary in these circumstances and found the lack of opportunity sufficient to set aside the order on the issues other than the ITC limitation issue.

On the limitation issue, the Court relied on its earlier common order and quashed the impugned order to that extent.

It conditioned reconsideration of the remaining issues on the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount, consistent with the petitioner’s offer and the respondent’s submission.

It set aside the order on the other issues and remanded them for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order. The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within two weeks thereafter; the respondent must then give 14 clear days’ notice of a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.