In WP(C) NO. 21212 of 2023 -KER HC- Kerala High Court dismisses Koduvayur Constructions’ writ petition challenging GST assessment order served via ‘GST Portal’
Justice C.S. Dias [07-08-2023]

Read Order: Koduvayur Constructions V. The Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract and Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, August 24, 2023: The Kerala High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Koduvayur Constructions (petitioner), upholding the validity of the service of a GST assessment order through the common portal.

In the said case, the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), had its GST registration cancelled with effect from 30 September 2021. The petitioner argued that it was no longer liable to pay any taxes or dues under the GST Act. However, the Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract issued an assessment order, demanding payment of Rs. 19,22,566. The order was served on the petitioner through the GST portal. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that it had not been served in a valid manner. The petitioner also argued that it was under the impression that it had no liability to pay any taxes or dues.

The single-judge bench of Justice C.S. Dias observed that a plain reading of Sections (a) through (f) of subsection (1) of Section 169 of the CGST Act, makes it clear that any decision, order, summons, notice, or communication under the Act and its rules can be served on the taxpayer through any one of the methods listed.

The bench noted that the petitioner did not deny that the assessment order was made available on the GST portal. The petitioner's only argument was that, because its GST registration had been cancelled, it believed it had no obligation to the Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract. The bench found this argument to be unconvincing in light of the alternative methods of service provided under Section 169(1) of the CGST Act.

The bench remarked that it was the petitioner's responsibility to check the GST portal for any notices or orders that had been served on it. The bench held that the petitioner's contention that the assessment order was not served in a valid manner was untenable.