The Orissa High Court ruled in the case of M/s. SKM Infraventure Private Limited vs. The CT & GST Officer, Keonjhar Circle & Others, affirming that uploading a GST notice or order on the GST portal constitutes valid service. M/s. SKM Infraventure contended that they were unaware of two GST DRC-07 orders issued under Section 74 of the CGST/OGST Act, as they were not served physically. The company only discovered the orders after their bank account was attached and argued this non-service prevented them from appealing within the limitation period, prompting them to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The GST department maintained that the orders were properly uploaded on the GST portal, a valid service method under Section 169 of the GST Act. The Court found that the petitioner had responded to earlier communications, indicating awareness of the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that once an order is uploaded on the GST portal, the service requirement is fulfilled, and taxpayers must regularly check the portal. The petitioner's failure to monitor the portal did not invalidate the service, nor did it justify bypassing the statutory appeal process.
Read More: GSTN has mandated Ship-to GSTIN for applicable e-Invoice/e-Way Bill transactions and introduced Voluntary EWB Closure from 1st August 2026 [Advisory attached]
The Court noted the petitioner did not specify when they became aware of the orders and allowed the appeal period under Section 107 to lapse. The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction due to lack of detailed explanation for the delay and observed that the petitioner's participation in the proceedings undermined their claim of ignorance. The ruling emphasized adherence to the statutory appellate mechanism and the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
Order Date - 25 June 2026
Parties: M/s. SKM Infraventure Private Limited Vs The CT & GST Officer, Keonjhar Circle & Others
Facts -
- M/s. SKM Infraventure Private Limited challenged two GST DRC-07 orders issued under Section 74 of the CGST/OGST Act for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2018, contending that the orders were never served physically and it became aware of them only after its bank account was attached.
- The petitioner argued that due to non-service of notices and orders, it could not participate in the adjudication proceedings or file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and therefore sought relief directly under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The GST department contended that the notices and orders were duly uploaded on the GST portal, which is a valid mode of service under Section 169 of the GST Act, and that disputed questions regarding service and knowledge should be decided by the statutory appellate authority.
- The Court also noted that the adjudication records showed the petitioner had responded to earlier communications regarding suppression of turnover, contradicting its claim of complete ignorance of the proceedings.
Issue -
- Whether a GST assessee can invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction by alleging non-service of notices despite the notices and orders having been uploaded on the GST portal
Order -
- The Court observed that Section 169 of the GST Act expressly permits service of notices and orders through any one of the prescribed modes, including uploading them on the common GST portal. Once the order is uploaded electronically, the statutory requirement of service stands satisfied and no additional physical or postal service is mandatory.
- The Court held that the petitioner's admission that it had failed to verify the GST portal could not invalidate the statutory service. A registered taxpayer is expected to monitor the GST portal regularly, and failure to do so cannot be used as a ground to challenge the proceedings or extend limitation.
- The Court further observed that the petitioner failed to disclose the exact date on which it allegedly gained knowledge of the orders and had also allowed the statutory appeal period under Section 107 to lapse. In the absence of material particulars explaining the delay, the High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
- The Court also found that the adjudication records reflected the petitioner's participation in the proceedings through written submissions. This weakened its plea that it had no knowledge of the proceedings and reinforced the conclusion that the writ petition was an attempt to avoid the statutory appellate mechanism, including the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.
