The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime imposes strict timelines and service procedures for taxpayer compliance. But real-world lapses like missed notices can cause serious consequences including demand orders, cancellation of registration, and penalties.
Courts across India have responded by developing a clear judicial trend: if procedural lapses or communication failures led to the missed notice, taxpayers deserve a second chance often on certain conditions. This article surveys recent High Court rulings (2022–2025) that illustrate this balance between Compliance and fairness.
Read More: GST Portal Glitches: A comprehensive Overview, Challenges and Mitigation Measures
Unravel the Tax Puzzle with the Supreme Court’s Wisdom! – Click Here
Notices uploaded in the tabs such as Additional Notices & Orders may be legally deemed served, but not effectively communicated.
In the recent ruling of GMT Garments v. UOI (2025) the Delhi High Court quashed a demand order for the reason that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was uploaded in the Additional Notices and orders tab.
Earlier in 2024, in the case of Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) vs. Sales Tax Officer (SGST), the Delhi High Court set aside the demand order and granted an opportunity for uploading SCN in the Additional Notices and orders tab in the GST Portal.
Unravel the Tax Puzzle with the Supreme Court’s Wisdom! – Click Here
In Tvl. B.S. Construction v. STO (2024), the taxpayer was not aware of proceedings due to the SCN being uploaded only on GST Portal. The Madras High court found this genuine and set aside the order in the Interest of Justice.
In Sakthi Steel Trading v. AC (ST) (2024), the Madras High court ruled that relying only on email for the response of the taxpayer was inadequate. The court held that Notices should be issued through alternate modes such as registered post if the taxpayer failed to respond to notices which were earlier served through email.
The courts have acknowledged that portal glitches that are unable to view or download notices can justify non-response of the Taxpayer.
In Ambadeep Estates v. CGST (2025), the Delhi High Court held that the GST portal itself was not accessible to view notices by the taxpayer. The court accepted the contention of GST portal Glitch and remanded for fresh adjudication.
Unravel the Tax Puzzle with the Supreme Court’s Wisdom! – Click Here
Read More: How do Technical Glitches in the GST Portal Impact Businesses
The Courts have consistently held that any tax order passed without giving the taxpayer a proper chance to be heard violates the principle of Natural Justice.
In the ruling of Sri Sivasakthi Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. AC (ST) (2024), the Madras High court quashed the order as the notice was uploaded but not effectively served. The court held that ineffective service violated the taxpayer right to reply. The court allowed filing objections, subject to 10% payment of the disputed amount.
The courts have held that uploading an SCN on the GST portal is legally valid but may be held ineffective if taxpayers are unable to access or locate it.
The Courts disapprove of mechanical ex parte orders when the notice service is flawed. The courts have granted relief to such ex parte orders.
In the ruling of M/s Bajrang & Bajrang v. STO (Fac.), the Madras High court held that the taxpayer being aged and failing to check the portal, the court allowed reconsideration on the condition of paying 10% of the tax demanded.
Unravel the Tax Puzzle with the Supreme Court’s Wisdom! – Click Here
There are several relief for the taxpayers who were affected by missed GST notices with genuine reasons. The court has granted relief to the sufficient causes and plausible explanations.
Taxpayers may file appeals with condonation for delay if a sufficient cause is shown. The Missed notices may cause to pass an ex parte order. The taxpayer may be not aware of the order and the limitation periods may be lapsed.
In such circumstances the taxpayer can appeal to the appellate authority with condonation of delay under section 107 of CGST act.
When statutory remedies are foreclosed due to procedural defects (e.g., missed limitation period due to non-service), courts entertain writs to protect fundamental rights.
In the recent ruling of Tanishka Steel v. UOI (2025), the Delhi High court set aside a Rs.1.36 crore GST demand because the SCN was “hidden” in the Additional Notices tab, and no reply had been filed due to its invisibility. The order arose out of a writ petition filed by the taxpayer under the article of 226 and 227 of the constitution of India.
Read More: Unexplained Two-year Delay in Service Tax proceedings: Patna HC Sets Aside Tax Demand and Penalty
Unravel the Tax Puzzle with the Supreme Court’s Wisdom! – Click Here
| Case | Court | Date | Issue | Ruling |
| Kamla Vohra v. STO | Delhi HC | 13 July 2024 | GST SCN uploaded under “Additional Notices” tab, not seen by taxpayer. | Held portal upload is “sufficient compliance” (Sec.169 CGST), but remanded for fresh hearing; petitioner given 2 weeks to reply. |
| Ashish Traders v. State of U.P. | Allahabad HC | 2024 | Initial SCN and order only appeared under “Additional Notices”, not communicated. | Taxpayer entitled to benefit of doubt; directed AO to issue fresh 15-day notice (in proper manner). |
| GMT Garments v. Union of India | Delhi HC | 30 Apr 2025 | SCN uploaded under “Additional Notices” tab; assessee missed notice and filed no reply. | Notice deemed invalid service; demand order set aside. Taxpayer’s time-barred appeal restored with delay condoned. |
| Atul Agrawal v. State of U.P. | Allahabad HC | Dec 2024 | SCN uploaded in the “Additional Notices” tab, not properly served. | Demand order quashed. Court held notice in Additional tab is “insufficient for proper notification”. |
| Shyam Roshan Transport v. State of U.P. | Allahabad HC | 2024 | Notices/orders put in “Additional Notices” instead of “Due Notices” tab. | Demand orders were quashed due to failure of communication (notice was in the wrong portal tab). (HC regarded it as a technical lapse barring response.) |
| Om Traders LLP v. State of U.P. | Allahabad HC | Dec 28, 2024 | No notice/SCN served; order passed ex parte under Sec.73. | Order treated as SCN under Sec.73; petitioner allowed 8 weeks to file objections; AO to reconsider after hearing. |
| Akriti Food Ind. LLP v. State of U.P. | Allahabad HC | 3 Dec 2024 | Assessing order passed without any served SCN; order surfaced only in portal’s “Additional Notices”. | Order held “flawed” for violating mandatory procedure. Order treated as SCN; petitioner given 8 weeks to reply. |
| Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala | Kerala HC | 26 Feb 2025 | SCN and order only uploaded under “Additional Notices and Orders” (not served). | Order set aside for improper notice service (lack of actual communication amounted to denial of hearing). |
Unravel the Tax Puzzle with the Supreme Court’s Wisdom! – Click Here
As of 2025, Indian judicial bodies have developed a taxpayer centric approach yet procedurally firm stance on missed GST notices. Courts are willing to set aside ex parte orders and grant fresh hearings when genuine causes like portal glitches or improper service are proven. However, this judicial leniency is not unconditional. Taxpayers are expected to pay disputed tax amounts as a condition.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
