Service of Notice via GST Portal is valid; alternative remedy bars writ jurisdiction despite limitation expiry.

The Petitioner, a public listed textile manufacturing company, challenged multiple show-cause notices issued in Form GSTR-3A under Section 46 of the CGST Act, 2017, and a subsequent order dated 24.04.2024 which cancelled its GST registration for non-filing of returns.

The Petitioner contended that while notices were uploaded to the GST portal, they were not served physically, leading to a lack of awareness regarding the proceedings.

The Petitioner failed to respond to the notices, seek revival of registration under Section 13, or file a statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period.

1. Whether the service of notice via uploading on the GST portal constitutes valid and sufficient service under the CGST Act, 2017?

2. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when the Petitioner has failed to exhaust alternative statutory remedies within the prescribed limitation?

The Court applied Section 62 and Section 46 of the CGST/MPGST Act, 2017, regarding assessments and notices for non-filers.

The Court relied on the statutory provisions of the GST Act, which recognize portal uploads as a valid mode of service.

The Court addressed the "View Additional Notices" portal architecture issue by referencing Ms. Light Group v. State of M.P. and Sabari Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST).

The Court emphasized the principle of alternative efficacious remedy and the strict limitation for appeals under the CGST Act, noting that Article 226 is not intended for non-vigilant litigants.

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that physical service was mandatory, holding that under the GST Act, 2017, uploading notices to the portal is a legally recognized method of service.

While acknowledging previous jurisprudence where portal design (e.g., "Additional Notices" tab) caused confusion, the Court distinguished the present case because the Petitioner had shown a consistent lack of vigilance by ignoring multiple notices from 2023 to 2024 and failing to utilize the statutory revival or appeal mechanisms.

The Court reasoned that the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the mandatory pre-deposit requirements of a statutory appeal or to bypass expired limitation periods.

It concluded that since the notices were legally served, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court dismissed the petition, observing that all legal grounds, including claims regarding natural justice and "Best Judgment" assessments, must be raised before the statutory appellate authority or Tribunal; however, the Petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal and seek condonation of delay before the appropriate forum.