Department Serving Notice Via WhatsApp Post-COVID Is Not Valid U/S 169 CGST Act: Kerala High Court

Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, outlines various methods for serving notices, orders, or communications under the GST law.

Justices Nitin Jamdar and Basant Balaji was addressing the case where the department had served the detention and confiscation order to the assessee through WhatsApp.

In this case, the assessee/petitioner is the owner of a truck and his truck transported bilge water from INS Vikramaditya at the Cochin Wharf.

The assessee received a copy of the detention order, which stated that a notice under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was served on the consignor, Petro Chemicals, for alleged tax evasion.

The assessee had challenged the detention and the confiscation order issued under the Act of 2017 by filing writ petition.

The assessee contended that he had no knowledge or involvement in the alleged tax evasion and the vehicle was hired only to transport goods. No notice or copy of the detention and confiscation orders pertaining to the vehicle was served on him.

The department submitted that there were repeated communications with the assessee through WhatsApp.

The Single Judge found that the contention regarding non-service of the confiscation order on the assessee cannot be accepted, and the petition was dismissed.

The assessee has filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge.

The bench noted that the assessee admittedly is the owner of the vehicle (conveyance). The statute prescribes the mode of notice. The notice stated to have been sent to the assessee /owner through WhatsApp is not a mode of service contemplated under Section 169 of the Act of 2017.

The bench further stated that while such a practice was permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it no longer constitutes a valid mode of issuing notice under the provisions of the Act of 2017, and there is no debate regarding the same.

The notice served on the assessee before holding that the proceedings under Section 130 are concluded against the assessee is not placed on record. There is, therefore, a serious lacuna in the procedure adopted by the department as far as confiscation of the assessee's vehicle is concerned, added the bench.

In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition.

Case Title: Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer

Case Number: WA NO. 973 OF 2025

Counsel for Appellant/Assessee: Faizel K.

Counsel for Respondent/Department: Dr. Thushara James

Click Here To Read/Download The Order