Delay In Uploading Demand Order On GST Portal Not Time Barred If Service Effected By Email | Delhi High Court On Section 169 CGST Act
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held that an e-mail communication dated 4th February 2025 constituted a sufficient mode of service under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court directed that appeals against the impugned orders be filed by 30th September 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. It was clarified that such appeals, if filed within the time granted, shall not be dismissed on limitation grounds and must be adjudicated on merits. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with pending applications also disposed of in terms of the final directions.
The matter arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders passed by the tax authorities, along with the corresponding demand notices in Form DRC-07. The first show cause notice was issued on 26th July 2024, culminating in an order dated 16th January 2025, with the demand notice issued on 27th January 2025. The second show cause notice was issued on 3rd August 2024, resulting in an order dated 1st February 2025, with the demand notice uploaded on 18th February 2025.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to the first order dated 16th January 2025, the petitioner was willing to prefer an appeal. The ground raised was that the said order covered multiple financial years, an issue which, according to counsel, had already been settled by a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, 2025:DHC:6181-DB. In that case, the Court had examined the question of consolidated notices covering several financial years under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act.
The Bench recorded the arguments advanced regarding the interpretation of Sections 73(3), 73(4), 74(3), and 74(4) of the CGST Act, which allow issuance of notices and statements “for any period” and “for such periods.” The petitioner contended that the phraseology used was significant and should be understood to allow consolidated notices covering multiple financial years. The Court in Ambika Traders had noted that fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) often spanned across years, with purchases and supplies reflected in different financial years, and therefore detection required examining transactions across such periods.
As regards the second order dated 1st February 2025, the petitioner’s counsel raised the ground of limitation. It was submitted that the limitation period for passing the order expired on 5th February 2025. Although the order was dated 1st February 2025, the demand in Form DRC-07 was uploaded only on 18th February 2025, which according to the petitioner rendered the order time-barred.
In response, counsel for the respondent relied upon an e-mail dated 4th February 2025 issued by the Additional Director General (North) to several noticees, including the petitioner. The respondent submitted that the e-mail constituted sufficient service of the order dated 1st February 2025. The petitioner countered this by submitting that the e-mail address on which the order was sent appeared to belong to the chartered accountant of the petitioner, and not the registered e-mail address of the petitioner, thereby questioning its validity under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
The Court took note of its earlier decision in M/s Raj International v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors. (W.P.(C) 4096/2025, decided on 25th April 2025), wherein it had observed inconsistencies in the GST Department’s practice of serving communications, notices, and orders. In that matter, the Court had directed the Department to ensure that service be affected through the GST portal, the personal e-mail and mobile number of the assessee, and, where possible, also through speed post, in order to avoid disputes relating to service.
The Bench also referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority, Under Shop and Establishment Act/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, which held that Section 169 mandates service by personal delivery, registered post, or to the registered e-mail ID. Only when such modes are not practicable may the State resort to publication on the portal or in newspapers.
Against this backdrop, the Court noted that in the present case the order dated 1st February 2025 had been communicated by e-mail on 4th February 2025, and subsequently, the Form DRC-07 was uploaded on 19th February 2025. It was observed that there were 650 noticees in the case, and the allegations related to fraudulent availment of ITC of Rs. 173 crores. The Court recorded that generation of individual Form DRC-07 for each noticee could reasonably require some time, and therefore the delay in uploading the same on the portal did not by itself render the order barred by limitation.
The Bench observed: “Prima-facie this Court is of the opinion that e-mail dated 4th February, 2025 is sufficient mode of service.” The Court noted that although the petitioner had questioned the validity of the e-mail address, the order had been communicated not only to the petitioner but also to several other noticees against whom similar demands had been raised. The Court stated that the essential requirement of service under Section 169 was satisfied in the facts of the case.
On the issue of consolidated notices, the Bench recorded the judicial reasoning from Ambika Traders, where it was stated: “The language in the abovementioned provisions i.e., the word ‘period’ or ‘periods’ as against ‘financial year’ or ‘assessment year’ are therefore, significant.” It was further noted: “The nature of ITC is such that fraudulent utilization and availment of the same cannot be established on most occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years.” The Bench observed that a solitary availment or utilization of ITC in one financial year may not reveal fraudulent conduct, which could only be detected when transactions across multiple years were examined in conjunction.
Regarding the contention on limitation, the Court recorded: “When there are 650 noticees, obviously, the generation of DRC-07 for each of the noticees could take some reasonable time so long as the order has been communicated through e-mail or post or other modes as contained in Section 169 of the CGST Act. Accordingly, the delay in uploading Form DRC-07 or the order on the portal would not make the order barred by limitation.”
On the question of the petitioner’s right to appeal, the Court observed: “The impugned order being an appealable order, the Petitioner is permitted to challenge the same by an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. In the said appeal, the Petitioner is also permitted to raise the issue of limitation.”
The Division Bench issued the following final directions. It held: “Prima-facie this Court is of the opinion that e-mail dated 4th February, 2025 is sufficient mode of service. However, the impugned order being an appealable order, the Petitioner is permitted to challenge the same by an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.”
The Court directed that the appeals be filed by 30th September 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. It was clarified that if the appeals were filed within the said time, they would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and would be adjudicated on merits. The Court disposed of the writ petition in these terms, along with all pending applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Shubham Goel, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Advocate
Case Title: Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6922-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 12199/2025 & CM APPL. 49693/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain
