The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that uploading GST notices on the GST portal is a valid method of service. This decision came in response to a case where M/s SEL Manufacturing Company Limited challenged multiple GSTR-3A notices and a demand of ₹8.58 crore, plus interest and penalties, following the cancellation of its GST registration. The company argued that the notices were not physically served, which it claimed was necessary for them to respond effectively.
Read more: Gauhati High Court - A summary in Form GST DRC-01 cannot replace the mandatory Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1); any order passed without a valid SCN is unsustainable in law [Order attached]
The petitioner, a textile manufacturer, had failed to file GSTR-3B returns despite receiving several notices on the GST portal from September 2023 to April 2024. After its registration was canceled, the company did not seek revocation or file a statutory appeal but instead approached the High Court through a writ petition after the appeal limitation period had expired.
The key issue was whether the taxpayer could challenge the GST notices and the cancellation of registration via a writ petition when notices were validly uploaded on the GST portal and statutory remedies were not pursued. The Court held that the service of notices through the GST portal is legally recognized under the GST Act, rejecting the petitioner's claim that physical service was required.
The Court noted that the petitioner ignored all statutory remedies, such as filing a reply, seeking revocation, or appealing the cancellation. It emphasized that a writ petition cannot be used to bypass statutory remedies and conditions like limitation and mandatory pre-deposit for appeals. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of adhering to statutory processes under the GST law.
Order Date - 07 July 2026
Paries: M/s SEL Manufacturing Company Limited Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Facts -
- Petitioner, M/s SEL Manufacturing Company Limited challenged multiple GSTR-3A notices, the demand of ₹8.58 crore (plus interest and penalty), and the GST registration cancellation order dated 24.04.2024, contending that notices were not physically served.
- The petitioner, a textile manufacturer registered under GST, failed to file GSTR-3B returns despite receiving several notices uploaded on the GST portal between September 2023 and April 2024. It also did not respond to the subsequent notice proposing cancellation of registration.
- The company argued that merely uploading notices under the GST portal was insufficient service and that physical service was necessary to enable it to respond effectively.
- After cancellation of registration, the petitioner neither sought revocation nor filed the statutory appeal. Instead, after the appeal limitation expired, it approached the High Court through a writ petition.
Issue -
- Whether a taxpayer can challenge GST notices and cancellation of registration through a writ petition when notices were validly uploaded on the GST portal and statutory remedies of revocation and appeal were not availed.
Order -
- The Court held that uploading notices on the GST portal is a legally recognised mode of service under the GST Act. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that notices were invalid merely because they were not physically served was rejected.
- The Court distinguished earlier decisions granting relief where notices were uploaded under the confusing "Additional Notices" tab. In the present case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such procedural defect and had remained completely inactive despite notices being available on the portal.
- The Bench observed that the petitioner ignored every statutory remedy available under the GST law, including filing a reply, seeking revocation of cancellation, and preferring an appeal. A writ remedy cannot be invoked by a litigant who has failed to exercise the remedies specifically provided by the statute.
- The Court further held that allowing the writ petition would effectively permit the petitioner to avoid statutory conditions such as limitation and mandatory pre-deposit for filing an appeal. Since an efficacious appellate mechanism existed, the writ petition was dismissed.
