Uploading notices on GST portal alone insufficient service post-cancellation; compliance with multiple modes under Section 169 mandatory.

The petitioner, a proprietary firm, challenged an order dated 30.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act, 2017, which imposed a tax demand of Rs. 1,78,99,124/- for the financial year 2018-19

The petitioner’s GST registration had been cancelled on 13.08.2018

Nearly five years later, on 10.01.2024, the Respondent authorities issued a notice under Section 73(1) by uploading it solely on the GST portal

The petitioner contended they were unaware of the proceedings as they had no reason to check the portal years after business closure

1. Whether the mere uploading of a notice on the GST portal constitutes valid service of notice under Section 169 of the Act, particularly when the taxpayer's registration has been cancelled for several years.

2. Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of effective communication.

Section 169 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which prescribes the specific modes for service of notice

The Court relied on the precedent set in M/s Shree Shyam Trading Company vs. The Union of India & Ors. (dated 09.07.2025), which established that mere uploading on a portal is insufficient; the authorities must comply with at least two modes of service mentioned in Section 169, as a registered entity cannot be expected to monitor a portal indefinitely

The Court observed that while the petitioner's registration was cancelled in August 2018, the demand notice was issued more than five years later in January 2024

The Court reasoned that a taxpayer whose registration is inactive cannot be expected to perennially monitor the GST portal for potential notices

The Revenue failed to demonstrate that any mode of service other than digital uploading—as required by the statutory mandate of Section 169—was attempted

This failure to ensure actual notice resulted in the petitioner being deprived of an opportunity to contest the demand, thereby constituting a gross violation of the principles of natural justice

The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 6) for fresh consideration. The Court directed the respondent to issue a fresh notice within two weeks, provide the petitioner an opportunity to file objections, and grant a personal hearing before passing a fresh order in accordance with the law