Service Versus Communication Under GST Law

A Jurisprudential Analysis of Section 169 and Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Constitutional Validity of Portal-Based Service

Whether Mere Uploading on the GST Common Portal Constitutes Effective Communication?

Abstract

The digitalization of tax administration under the Goods and Services Tax regime has transformed the manner in which notices, summons, adjudication orders and appellate communications are served upon taxpayers. One of the most significant innovations under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”)is the recognition of the common portal as a valid statutory mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of CGST Act.

However, this innovation has simultaneously generated one of the most important procedural controversies in GST jurisprudence:

Whether mere uploading of an order on the GST portal constitutes valid service and effective communication for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act?

The issue lies at the intersection of:

• statutory interpretation,
• constitutional fairness,
• principles of natural justice,
• electronic communication jurisprudence, and
• access to justice.

The question becomes even more critical because under GST, appellate limitation is rigidly time-bound, and ex parte orders often attain finality before the Tax Payer acquires actual knowledge.

This article examines:

• 1. the statutory interplay between Sections 169 and 107 of CGST Act,
• 2. the conceptual distinction between “service” and “communication,”
• 3. judicial precedents for and against portal upload,
• 4. comparative legislative frameworks under Income Tax, Companies Act, Customs and Central Excise,
• 5. dictionary meaning of service and communication,
• 6. administrative law across different countries including India,
• 7. constitutional vulnerabilities of Section 169(1)(d) CGST Act, and
• 8. the evolving doctrine of “effective communication.”

I. INTRODUCTION

Technology has revolutionized taxation. Tax administration has shifted from physical files to electronic portals. The GST regime institutionalised this through online notices, orders and adjudications.

Under GST, the common portal functions as the central compliance interface for:

• Facilitating registration,
• Payment of tax,
• Furnishing of returns,
• Computation & settlement of integrated tax,
• Electronic way bill,
• notices, summons,
• communication,
• adjudication decisions, orders.
• For carrying out such other functions and for such purposes as may be prescribed.

The legislative assumption appears to be that the portal is constantly monitored.

This assumption is deeply flawed.

The legal difficulty arises when:

• the adjudication order is merely uploaded on the portal,
• no email is sent,
• no physical copy is served,
• no SMS alert is issued,
• and the Tax Payer remains unaware.

In practical commercial reality:

GST portals are ordinarily accessed:

• by tax consultants,
• accountants,
• return preparers,
• compliance professionals,

and often only:

• monthly,
• quarterly,
• annually,
• or at the time of filing returns.

Rarely are they monitored daily for adjudicatory developments.

This practical reality creates serious legal consequences.

A taxpayer may remain unaware of:

• Show Cause Notices,
• Assessment Orders,
• Recovery Orders,

until:

• bank accounts are attached,
• refunds are withheld,
• or recovery proceedings commence.

This raises the core question:

Can a passive digital upload extinguish substantive appellate rights?

II. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

The Central Goods and Services Act, 2017(Act No.12 of 2017)(CGST Act)

A. Section 2(26) of CGST Act defines “Common Portal” to means the common goods and services tax electronic portal referred to in section 146;

B. Section 146 of CGST Act provides for notifying of Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic portal by the Government on the recommendations of Council for:,

• Facilitating registration,
• Payment of tax,
• Furnishing of returns,
• Computation & settlement of integrated tax,
• Electronic way bill,
• For carrying out such other functions and for such purposes as may be prescribed.

C. Section 169 CGST Act –provides for Service of notice in certain circumstances: Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made there under shall be served by any of the following methods namely;

• (a). personal delivery or by messenger or courier to the taxable person or to his manager or authorized representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear or a person regularly employed in connection with business or to any adult member of a family residing with taxable person ;or,
• (b). registered/speed post/courier ;or,
• (c). sending a communication to his email address provided at time of registration; or,
• (d). making available on common portal; or,
• (e). newspaper publication; or,
• (f). affixture.

Section 169(2) states:

Service shall be deemed to have been effected on the date on which it is tendered or made available.

This creates a legal fiction.

Revenue relies heavily on clause (d).

Thus:

Portal upload is statutorily recognized as a mode of service.

But Section 169 deals with how an order is served.

It does not determine when limitation begins.

B. Section 107 CGST Act – provides for filing appeal:

Any person aggrieved may file appeal within three months from the date on which the decision or order is communicated.

This word “communicated” is crucial.

The statute uses:

communicated

not:

• served,
• uploaded,
• made available.

This distinction is deliberate.

C. Section 107(4) – Condonation

Only one month additional condonation is permissible.

Thus for the purpose of filing appeal:

Hence, the date of communication is decisive.

Rule 142 (1), (1A) and (2) of the Rules framed in the State/ Central Act reads as below:

"142. Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act. - (1) The proper officer shall serve, alongwith the -

• (a) Notice issued under Section 52 or Section 73 or Section 74 or Section 76 or Section 122 or Section 123 or Section 124 or Section 125 or Section 127 or Section 129 or Section 130, a summary thereof electronically in FORM G.S.T. D.R.C.-01.
• (b) statement under sub-section (3) of section 73 or sub-section (3) of section 74, a summary thereof electronically in FORM G.S.T. D.R.C.-02, specifying therein the details of the amount payable.
• (1A) The proper officer may, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty, under sub-section (1) of Section 73 or sub-section (1) of Section 74, as the case may be, communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in part A of FORM G.S.T. D.R.C.- 01A.
• (2) Where, before the service of notice or statement, the person chargeable with tax makes payment of the tax and interest in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 73 or, as the case may be, tax, interest and penalty in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 74, or where any person makes payment of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount due in accordance with the provisions of the act [whether on his own ascertainment or, as communicated by the proper officer under sub-rule (1A)] he shall inform the proper officer of such payment in FORM G.S.T. D.R.C.-03 and an acknowledgement, accepting the payment made by the said person in FORM G.S.T. D.R.C.-04."

III. SERVICE AND COMMUNICATION: A FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION

This distinction is the doctrinal core.

Service

Service is procedural.

Question:

Has the department adopted a legally recognized mode?

Communication

Communication is substantive.

Question:

Has the order effectively reached the taxpayer?

An order may be:

✔ technically served

but

✘ not effectively communicated.

This distinction is indispensable.

Without it:

the right of appeal becomes illusory.

IV. THE PRACTICAL REALITY DOCTRINE

This is perhaps the strongest modern argument.

The GST portal is not:

• an inbox,
• a postbox,
• an SMS,
• or an email.

It is a passive repository.

It merely stores.

It does not necessarily notify.

It does not ensure:

• visibility,
• access,
• acknowledgment,
• retrieval.

This is especially significant because:

• consultants often operate the portal,
• passwords may change,
• businesses may shut down,
• registrations may be cancelled.

Therefore:

availability cannot be equated with awareness.

This practical commercial reality must inform statutory interpretation.

V. SECTION 4,12,& 13 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

Further, section 4, 12 and 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, reads as below:

• "4. Legal recognition of electronic records.-Where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be in writing or in the typewritten or printed form, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such information or matter is-
• (a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and
• (b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.
• 12. Acknowledgment of receipt.-(1) Where the originator has not 3[stipulated] that the acknowledgment of receipt of electronic record be given in a particular form or by a particular method, an acknowledgment may be given by-
• (a) any communication by the addressee, automated or otherwise; or
• (b) any conduct of the addressee, sufficient to indicate to the originator that the electronic record has been received.
• (2) Where the originator has stipulated that the electronic record shall be binding only on receipt of an acknowledgment of such electronic record by him, then unless acknowledgment has been so received, the electronic record shall he deemed to have been never sent by the originator.
• (3) Where the originator has not stipulated that the electronic record shall be binding only on receipt of such acknowledgment, and the acknowledgment has not been received by the originator within the time specified or agreed or, if no time has been specified or agreed to within a reasonable time, then the originator may give notice to the addressee stating that no acknowledgment has been received by him and specifying a reasonable time by which the acknowledgment must be received by him and if no acknowledgment is received within the aforesaid time limit he may after giving notice to the addressee, treat the electronic record as though it has never been sent.
• 13. Time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic record.- (1) Save as otherwise agreed to between the originator and the addressee, the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the control of the originator.
• (2) Save as otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee, the time of receipt of an electronic record shall be determined as follows, namely:-
• (a) if the addressee has designated a computer resource for the purpose of receiving electronic records,-
• (i) receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record enters the designated computer resource; or
• (ii) if the electronic record is sent to a computer resource of the addressee that is not the designated computer resource, receipt occurs at the time when the electronic record is retrieved by the addressee;
• (b) if the addressee has not designated a computer resource along with specified timings, if any, receipt occurs when the electronic record enters the computer resource of the addressee.
• (3) Save as otherwise agreed to between the originator and the addressee, an electronic record is deemed to be dispatched at the place where the originator has his place of business, and is deemed to be received at the place where the addressee has his place of business.
• (4) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply notwithstanding that the place where the computer resource is located may be different from the place where the electronic record is deemed to have been received under sub-section (3).
• (5) For the purposes of this section,-
• (a) if the originator or the addressee has more than one place of business, the principal place of business, shall be the place of business;
• (b) if the originator or the addressee does not have a place of business, his usual place of residence shall be deemed to be the place of business;
• (c) "usual place of residence", in relation to a body corporate, means the place where it is registered."

Section 13 recognizes dispatch and receipt of electronic records.

An electronic record is dispatched only when:

it enters a computer resource outside the sender’s control.

This is important.

Portal upload does not involve:

• dispatch,
• transmission,
• directional delivery.

It merely involves storage.

The memorandum of issue of GSTN enlists its main objective as:

• "1. To promote trade and commerce by providing easily accessible, quick and efficient information technology and communications related services to the public and Government.
• 2. To assist and engage with various stakeholders in preparing information technology and communications related infrastructure for smooth roll out of any information technology driven initiatives and other e-governance initiatives of the Government or any department or agency of the Government, specifically for the roll out of the GST."

GSTN has not yet fulfilled that objective of its incorporation. It only seeks to serve the revenue's interest, by displaying such tabs and notices as are dictated to it for revenue considerations. By way of example, he has relied on screenshots of the dashboard of an assessee. Clearly on the first screen itself a tab appears, containing additional/immediate notification regarding authentication of Aadhar. He has relied on other pages of the dashboard to disclose that the revenue has prioritized entries of the Electronic Credit Ledger as also status of the returns filed for the last five return period, depicted in different colors indicating whether such return has been filed, or is overdue, or has not been filed. Therefore, it is not difficult for GSTN to provide for similar easy access to all notices/orders etc. uploaded, for the purpose of service on an assessee - to make compliance, by making similar tabs/options. Unless similar measures are devised and adopted, not only the object of the GSTN may remain unfulfilled, but service of notices and/or orders may not be found complete, on mere uploading of such documents.

Thus:

Section 169(1)(d) departs from established principles of electronic communication.

This strengthens constitutional challenge.

VI. Dictionary Meaning: Service versus Communication

A. Dictionary Meaning

• Black's Law Dictionary, South Asian Edition, Eighth Edition

• "1. Communication: 1. The expression or exchange of information by speech, writing, gestures, or conduct; the process of bringing an idea to another's perception. 2. The information so expressed or exchanged.

• 2. Service: 1. The formal delivery of a writ, summons, or other legal process after three attempts, service still had not been accomplished>. -Also termed service of process. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 411-518; Process 48-150. C.J.S Process 26-91]. 2. The formal delivery of some other legal notice, such as a pleading < be sure that a certificate of service is attached to the motion>. [Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 665].

• constructive service. 1. See substituted service. 2. Service accomplished by a method or circumstance that does not give actual notice.

• 3. Received: adj. 1 Capable of being admitted or accepted < receivable evidence>. 2. Awaiting receipt of payment accounts receivable>. 3. Subject to a call for payment < a note receivable>.

• Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Eighth Edition

• 1. Communication: "Electronic Communication". For discussion of the nature of an electronic communication, see R v. Effik [1994] 3 All E.R. 458, HL and Morgans v. Director of Public Prosecution [2000] 2 All E.R. 522, HL. See also Stat. Def., Section 15(1) of the Electronic Communication Act 2000(c.7) (includes a communication comprising sounds or images or both and a communication effecting a payment")

• 2. Served: A person is not "served" with proceedings for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 art.34(2) merely by way of being notified but not in accordance with the relevant regulations [Tavoulareas v. Tsavliris (2006) EWCA Civ 1772].

• 3. Received: Sums "received" in the United Kingdom in respect of securities elsewhere and chargeable with income tax under Section 100 Sch. D Case 4 of the Income Tax Act 1842 (c.35) did not include sums only constructively received in Great Britain, in yearly accounts of profits and loss (Gresham Life Assurance v. Bishop [1902] A.C. 287, weakening effect of, if not over-ruling, Universal Life Assurance v. Bishop, 68 L.J.Q.B. 962; following Scottish Mortgage Co of New Mexico v. Mc Kelvie, 24 S.L.R. 87, and Norwich Union Fire Insurance v. Magee, 44 W.R. 384). See further Forbes v. Scottish Provident Institution, 33 S.L.R. 228. Sums actually received in the United Kingdom in respect of a business abroad were, prima facie, profits chargeable with income tax (Scottish Provident Institution v. Allan [1903] A.C. 129; The Same v. Farmer, 6 Tax Cas. 34).

A. “Service”

Black’s Law Dictionary

Service means:

“The formal delivery of a writ, summons, or other legal process.”

The emphasis is on:

• dispatch,
• formal delivery,
• procedural compliance.

Service is therefore sender-centric.

Its inquiry is:

What did the authority do?

Oxford Dictionary

Service:

“The act of formally delivering a document.”

The focus remains procedural.

Actual receipt is not inherent.

Thus, service may be complete even where the recipient remains unaware.

B. “Communication”

Black’s Law Dictionary

Communication means:

“The imparting or exchange of information.”

Its essential components are:

• transfer of knowledge,
• intelligibility,
• receipt.

Communication is therefore recipient-centric.

Its inquiry is:

Did the recipient actually or constructively know?

Cambridge Dictionary

Communication:

“The process by which information is exchanged or conveyed.”

The concept of conveyance implies successful transmission.

A message unperceived may be served, but may not be communicated.

II. Jurisprudential Difference

The distinction can be summarized:

Thus:

Every communication may involve service, but every service does not necessarily amount to communication.

This distinction is central to GST litigation.

VII. Principle of Statutory Interpretation

It is a settled rule:

Different words used in the same statute are presumed to have different meanings.

When a statute uses different words or phrases, it is presumed that the legislature intended to express different meanings. This presumption is based on the understanding that the legislature does not use redundant or unnecessary words.

This principle directly applies to Sections 169 and 107 of CGST Act.

Leading Authorities

In Kailash Nath Agarwal v. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corp.. of U.P. Ltd.,2003(4) SCC 305, the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India held that when two different words are used by the same statute, they are presumed to carry different meanings. The Court further emphasized that different expressions in different sections of a statute should not be presumed to mean the same unless there is a clear indication to that effect.

While it is true that two different words may be used in the same statute to convey the same meaning, that is the exception rather than the rule. The general rule is that when two different words are used by the same statute, prima facie one has to construe these different words as carrying different meanings.

As held by the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India in LIC v. Escorts Ltd,1986(1) SCC 364,"The distinction made by Parliament .............. in the several provisions of the same Act cannot be ignored or strained to be explained away by us. That is not the way to interpret statutes. The proper way is to give due weight to the use as well as the omission to use the qualifying words in different provisions of the Act. The significance of the use of the qualifying word in one provision and its non use in another provision may not be disregarded."

Legislature consciously uses different words to convey different meanings.

Thus:

If Parliament intended limitation to start from service, Section 107 would have used “served.”

It deliberately used:

communicated

That choice must be respected.

VIII. Indian Jurisprudence

A. Administrative Orders Become Effective Only Upon Communication

State of Punjab v Amar Singh Harika, AIR 1966 SC 1313

It is plain that the mere passing of an order of dismissal would not be effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned.

This principle directly applies.

A tax order affecting civil consequences cannot operate silently.

B. GST Specific Jurisprudence

Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v State of U.P.,2025 NCAHC 229995

Allahabad High Court held:

• Section 169 and Section 107 operate differently.
• Service and communication are distinct.
• Mere upload may not start limitation.

This is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Yet its reasoning remains jurisprudentially significant.

IX. Global Tax Administration Practice

Modern tax authorities adopt multi-layered notice systems.

HM Revenue & Customs

Uses:

• portal upload,
• email notification,
• alerts.

Internal Revenue Service

Uses:

• direct notices,
• acknowledgments.

Global practice supports:

Upload alone is inadequate.

Natural Justice

The doctrine of audi alteram partem requires:

• notice,
• awareness,
• opportunity.

An appeal right is a substantive remedy.

If limitation begins without knowledge:

the remedy may be extinguished before it can be exercised.

That would be fundamentally unfair.

X. The Conceptual Distinction

The entire jurisprudence may be distilled thus:

Service is the legal mechanism of dispatch.

Communication is the factual accomplishment of notice.

Or:

Service is procedural; communication is substantive.

Or:

Service concerns sending; communication concerns knowing.

XI. Application to GST Portal Upload

Portal upload is analogous to:

placing a letter in a digital locker.

It exists.

But has it reached the assessee?

Unless accompanied by:

• email,
• SMS,
• portal alert,
• acknowledgment,
• access logs,

it remains:

service in form, not communication in substance.

XII. HON,BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JURISPRUDENCE ON COMMUNICATION

1. Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer

AIR 1961 SC 1500

Held:

Limitation begins when order is actually or constructively communicated.

Foundational principle.

2. CCE v. M.M. Rubber Co.

1992 Supp (1) SCC 471

Held:

Order becomes effective only when communicated.

Strongly supports Section 107 interpretation.

3. Madan Lal v. State of U.P.

(1975) 2 SCC 779

Held:

A person cannot be prejudiced by an unknown order.

4. State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah

AIR 1994 SC 2063

Held:

Effective communication is essential for limitation.

XIII. GST CASE LAW

A. In Favour of Assessee

1. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC held:

Mere uploading on portal is not effective communication.

Though stayed by Hon,ble Supreme Court of India.

Important persuasive reasoning survives.

2. Axiom Gen Nxt India Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC:

Portal is sufficient service.

But not necessarily effective service.

Critical distinction.

3. Vels Constructions

Madras HC held:

Empty formalities in service lead to multiplicity of litigation.

Revenue must explore alternate modes.

Strong natural justice case.

4. Tvl. C. Ragupathi v. Deputy State Tax Officer

Madras HC quashed order for lack of effective hearing.

5. Lord Vishnu Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC:

Improper portal placement invalidates service.

B. In Favour of Revenue

1. Carry Co. v. Union of India

Portal upload accepted as sufficient service.

2. T.K. Navas v. Commissioner GST

Kerala HC upheld portal service.

XIV. COMPARATIVE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS

A. Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 282

Recognizes:

• post,
• courier,
• email,
• electronic transmission.

Important distinction:

Income Tax uses transmission, not passive hosting.

Rule 127

Provides:

• registered email,
• PAN database,
• MCA database.

This ensures targeted delivery.

Portal listing of hearing is not effective service.

B. Companies Act, 2013

Section 20

Recognizes:

• post,
• courier,
• hand delivery,
• electronic transmission.

Electronic mode linked to registered email.

Not passive portal storage.

NCLT Rules, 2016

Require:

• actual transmission,
• service records,
• proof.

Thus stronger procedural safeguards.

C. Section 27 – General Clauses Act

Service implies:

actual delivery.

Presumption rebuttable.

XV. CONSTITUTIONAL VULNERABILITIES

Ground I – Article 14

Manifest arbitrariness.

Portal-only service assumes knowledge without proof.

Violates equal protection.

Ground II – Article 21

Fair procedure requires real notice.

Right to be heard presupposes right to know.

Ground III – Article 19(1)(g)

Recovery based on unseen orders disrupts business.

Disproportionate burden.

Ground IV – Natural Justice

XVI. GROUNDS TO CHALLENGE VIRES OF SECTION 169(1)(d)

1. Passive upload without active transmission is arbitrary.
2. No acknowledgment mechanism.
3. No proof of receipt.
4. No mandatory email/SMS.
5. Unlike Income Tax and Companies Act.
6. Creates unequal procedural protection.
7. Violates fair hearing rights.
8. Deeming fiction excessive.

XVII. SUGGESTED JUDICIAL TEST

Best balanced rule:

Portal upload creates rebuttable presumption of communication.

Taxpayer may rebut by proving:

• no actual knowledge,
• no email alert,
• no SMS,
• no alternate service,
• consultant change,
• immediate action upon actual knowledge.

This balances:

• administrative efficiency,
• procedural fairness.

XVIII. DEFINITE OPINION

In my considered opinion:

Section 169(1)(d) is not unconstitutional per se.

However:

its interpretation as conclusive communication is constitutionally suspect.

The better legal rule is:

Portal upload is only a mode of service, not conclusive communication.

Section 107 must be interpreted independently.

The expression “communicated” cannot be reduced to “uploaded.”

That would destroy:

• appellate rights,
• fairness,
• access to justice.

CONCLUSION

Technology may facilitate service.

It cannot replace communication.

A tax order silently lying in an electronic repository cannot automatically produce irreversible civil consequences.

The law must preserve the distinction between: technical & Effective communication

Until the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India finally settles the issue, this remains one of the most important procedural battlegrounds in GST law.

And rightly so—because: Invisible orders should not extinguish visible rights.

Author’s Note: This article is intended for legal analysis and academic discussion.

Disclaimer – This publication has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. The publication cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained therein without obtaining specific professional advice. Please seek for professional advice to discuss these matters in the context of your circumstances. The author, its partners, employees, and agents do not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this publication or for any decision based on it.

From the Law Office of:-

Goyal Chambers of Law

Email: goyalraj1969@gmail.com

Mob:+919814033663