Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner’s goods were transported from Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal under a valid invoice and e-way bill. During transit, the consignment was intercepted on 27.10.2024, and proceedings under Section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017 were initiated. Physical verification revealed no discrepancy in quantity or description of goods vis-à-vis the invoice. Despite the absence of any defect, the goods and vehicle were detained, a show cause notice (MOV-07) was issued, and an order under Section 129(3) was passed on 28.10.2024 demanding penalty, which was formalised in MOV-09.

The petitioner challenged the detention order before the Appellate Authority, but the appeal was dismissed ex parte on 10.09.2025, allegedly for non-appearance. The petitioner contended that no notice of hearing was ever served, mere uploading hearing dates on the GST portal does not constitute valid service. The appellate order violated principles of natural justice. The revenue claimed that multiple hearing dates were uploaded on the portal and that the petitioner deliberately avoided participation.

Issue:

Whether rejection of the statutory appeal ex parte, solely on the basis of alleged portal intimation, is sustainable in law.  Whether uploading hearing dates on the GST portal, without proof of effective communication, satisfies the requirement of service of notice.

Held that:

The Court held that mere uploading of hearing dates on the GST portal, without establishing effective communication to the assessee, cannot be treated as valid service, particularly when receipt of such intimation is specifically denied. The Court reiterated that entering into a forensic enquiry to determine whether electronic communications were received, deleted, or diverted to spam folders is neither practical nor desirable in writ proceedings.

Reliance placed upon Division Bench decision in M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., wherein the Court observed that unless an adjudication or appellate order is properly communicated, it cannot be said to have been validly served for the purposes of the GST Act. In the absence of clear proof of service, rejection of the appeal for non-appearance amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appellate order dated 10.09.2025 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. 

The High Court held that the ex parte appellate order could not be sustained, as the controversy regarding service of notice through the GST portal remained disputed and unresolved.

Case name:  M/s Shiv Traders Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others dated 27.01.2026 

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 176