The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 regarding electronic communication and “deemed service” cannot be invoked to validate or test the service of notices and orders issued under the GST laws. For that purpose, the Court held, tax authorities as well as assessees are strictly governed by the scheme contained in the CGST/UPGST Acts and Rules.
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh was hearing a batch of petitions where taxpayers had challenged ex parte assessment orders and demand notices on the ground that they were never properly served. The State, in defence, relied heavily on Section 13 of the Information Technology Act (which deals with the time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic records) to argue that uploading an order on the GST portal or sending it to an e‑mail ID should be treated as valid service.
The Bench declined to accept this line of reasoning, making it clear that the Information Technology Act is a general law dealing with electronic records, whereas the GST statutes are “special enactments” that provide their own exhaustive mechanism for service of notices, orders and other communications.
GST Act is a complete code on service
Referring to Section 169 of the CGST Act (and the pari materia provision in the UPGST Act), the Court noted that the legislature has specifically laid down the permissible modes of service—such as:
- By giving or tendering the notice directly
- By registered/speed post
- By e‑mail to the registered e‑mail address
- By making it available on the GST common portal
- By affixation in certain circumstances
LiveLaw reports that the Court underscored that when a special law like the CGST Act prescribes detailed procedures and legal consequences regarding service, that framework must prevail over the general provisions of the IT Act. The Bench observed that the authorities “cannot travel outside Section 169 to justify service”, nor can a taxpayer use the IT Act to argue that alleged electronic service was ineffective if the requirements of Section 169 stand satisfied.
IT Act cannot cure non-compliance under GST
The State had argued that even if the procedure under Section 169 was not scrupulously followed, the presumption contained in Section 13 of the IT Act (regarding receipt of electronic communications) should still operate in favour of the department. Rejecting this contention, the Bench held that the IT Act cannot be used as a “fallback” statute to cure defects or lapses in the mandatory procedure prescribed under GST.
In substance, the Court drew a clear line:
- Validity of service in GST proceedings must be judged only with reference to Section 169 CGST/UPGST and allied Rules, and
- The IT Act cannot be invoked either to dilute or to expand that statutory regime.
Relief for taxpayers, clarity for department
On facts, the Court examined whether the State could establish that the impugned orders and notices were actually served in any of the modes contemplated under Section 169. Where the record did not support proper service (for instance, where there was no proof of portal upload in the taxpayer’s account or no evidence of e‑mail delivery to the registered address), the Court set aside the ex parte orders and remitted the matters for fresh proceedings after proper service.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that if the department demonstrates due compliance with Section 169, a taxpayer cannot later rely on the IT Act or general principles of electronic communication to claim that service was defective.
Why this ruling matters
The judgment is significant for both the tax administration and assessees:
- It reaffirms that GST is a self-contained procedural code, especially on service of notice.
- It prevents revenue authorities from loosely relying on generic IT Act presumptions where they have failed to follow the specific steps mandated by GST law.
- It also warns taxpayers that once proper service under Section 169 is proved, they cannot challenge proceedings by importing arguments from the IT Act.
For a regime where almost all communication is routed through the common portal and e‑mail, the Allahabad High Court’s ruling brings much-needed doctrinal clarity: service in GST matters begins and ends with Section 169—nothing more, nothing less.
