JEST GST - 442

JULY 08, 2026

Reply Filed, Justice Misfiled

By Vijay Kumar

IT happens quite often that a Show Cause Notice meant for a taxpayer, dutifully uploaded on the GST portal, sits there like a forgotten suitcase on a railway platform-unclaimed, unnoticed, and waiting for disaster. The taxpayer, blissfully unaware of this digital time bomb, continues with his life until one day he is struck with heavy consequences for the crime of not seeing what he was never told to look for.

In Bajrang & Bajrang vs. The State Tax Office (W.P. No. 9960 of 2024), the Madras High Court held that a registered person cannot be absolved of the responsibility to monitor the GST portal. Fair enough. The Court, in its judicial generosity, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication subject to a deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand. A sort of "portal negligence tax".

But what happens when the adjudicating authority himself does not see the reply uploaded on the very same portal?

This is what exactly happened in this story.

The Case of the Invisible Reply

In a recent Writ Petition, (Golden Bullion v Union of India - 2026-TIOL-771-HC-MUM-GST)the Order-in-Original dated 13 November 2025 was challenged primarily because the reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN dated 20 June 2025 was not taken into account.

Not ignored.

Not rejected.

Simply not seen.

Why?

Because the adjudicating authority had not checked the portal.

The petitioner submitted that he had diligently filed his reply through the Departmental Portal. But paragraph 4 of the impugned order revealed a startling truth: the adjudicating authority was blissfully unaware of the reply's existence.

The Department's Counsel, with admirable candour, submitted:

- Yes, the reply was indeed submitted,

- But the portal is generally managed by the jurisdictional officer,

- And therefore, the reply was not transmitted or brought to the notice of the adjudicating officer

A bureaucratic black hole - generously funded by the exchequer.

Whose Duty Is It Anyway?

One is tempted to ask a few elementary questions:

- Is it not the foundational duty of an adjudicating authority to check the record before exercising his mighty mouse - click of judgement?

- Is it not the duty of someone-anyone-to ensure that a taxpayer's reply does not vanish into digital oblivion?

- Is it not the duty of the jurisdictional gatekeeper to pass the file along?

- Is it not the duty of someone in the building to ensure justice doesn't evaporate into a server error?

Do we build a digital superhighway so that information could be hand-delivered by a bullock cart?

The adjudicating officer could have just contacted the taxpayer. But that, perhaps, would be beneath his dignity. Even a sepoy could have been asked to make a simple phone call. But why resort to such primitive methods when one can pass orders without seeing replies?

And so, without any such botheration, the adjudicating authority did what he is best at- adversarial adjudication.

It is not clear whether a personal hearing was granted. If it was, the reply submitted by the taxpayer seems to have been treated like an uninvited guest-politely ignored.

High Court to the Rescue (Again)

The taxpayer was left with no option but to approach the High Court-this time the busy Bombay High Court (not that other High Courts are not busy).

What could have been solved by a simple phone call by the lowest employee in the adjudicating authority's office had to be sorted out by two High Court judges. These judges have the power to quash Acts of Parliament, award or set aside death sentences, and punish for contempt. Yet here they were, solving a problem created by an adjudicating authority who did not check his portal.

Fortunately, the Department did not argue that the taxpayer should have followed the Departmental appeal channel instead of a writ petition. A rare moment of restraint.

The Court, on agreement by both sides, set aside the Order-in-Original dated 13 November 2025 and directed:

"It is now open for the Adjudicating Authority to consider the matter afresh after taking due note of the show cause reply filed by the Petitioner and also after giving fresh opportunity of hearing the Petitioner. The date of hearing may be notified in advance to the Petitioner."

The High Court has asked the Adjudicating Authority to perform four simple acts:

1. Consider the matter afresh,

2. Take note of the reply to the show cause notice filed by the Petitioner,

3. Give a fresh opportunity of hearing the Petitioner, and

4. Notify the date of hearing in advance to the petitioner.

It is fervently hoped that the distinguished adjudicating authority will be benign enough to consider the High Court's order favourably.

Portal Responsibility: One-Way Traffic?

The Madras High Court held that the petitioner cannot be absolved of the responsibility to monitor the GST portal.

But can the adjudicating authority be absolved of the responsibility to monitor the same portal?

If taxpayers must check the portal daily like a devotional ritual, should officers not check it at least once before passing an order?

SOP No. 404: The Ostrich Method of Adjudication

Step 1 : Assume no reply has been filed.

Step 2 : Pass order confirming Step 1.

Step 3 : If reply is later discovered, blame the portal.

Step 4 : If portal is working, blame the jurisdictional officer.

Step 5 : If jurisdictional officer is working, blame "technical issues."

Step 6 : If no issues exist, blame the taxpayer anyway.

This is the only checklist where every step leads to the same conclusion.

Why Does This Happen?

Because the GST portal is treated like a distant cousin - invited to every function, expected to do all the work, but never actually spoken to. The Department trusts the portal to send notices but does not trust it enough to check replies. It is the only relationship where communication is one-way and responsibility is two-way.

A Short Fictional Dialogue

Taxpayer : Sir, I uploaded my reply on the portal weeks ago.

Officer : I didn't see it.

Taxpayer : But it's there.

Officer : Then why didn't you tell me?

Taxpayer : Sir, the portal is designed to tell you.

Officer : The portal doesn't speak to me. It speaks to the jurisdictional officer.

Taxpayer : And he didn't mention it?

Officer : He didn't tell me. He is a very busy man.

Taxpayer : So where does that leave me?

Officer : In default.

Taxpayer : But why must I pay for an internal communication failure?

Officer : Because suffering builds character.

Taxpayer : Whose character?

Officer : Yours. Mine is already built and protected by sovereign immunity and Section 157 of the CGST Act.

This is classic government comedy.

The GST Portal User Manual

How to Ensure Your Reply Is Seen

1. Upload reply.

2. Call Adjudication officer.

3. Call jurisdictional officer.

4. Call the office sepoy.

5. Consult an astrologer regarding the alignment of the servers.

6. File a writ Petition.

7. Call the sepoy back to confirm he received the WhatsApp screenshot of the upload.

If the officer calls

Let us assume the officer calls up the taxpayer saying, "You have not replied to the SCN."

Taxpayer politely says, "Sir, I uploaded it last month."

The officer replies, "Uploading is not enough. You must also inform us that you uploaded it."

The taxpayer asks, "Then why upload at all?"

The officer says, "Because the law requires it."

The taxpayer asks, "And informing you?"

The officer says, "Because we require it."

Please submit your online form offline too.

The "Admitted Proof of Export" Saga

I am reminded of a case where an officer threatened an assessee with dire consequences for not producing the admitted proof of export.

The bewildered exporter replied, "I have submitted the shipping bills, the bank realization certificates, and the customs endorsements. What else constitutes 'admitted' proof, and who must admit it?"

The officer explained that submitting proof was not enough-it had to be admitted by him (the officer).

The assessee still does not understand how the officer can take action against him when the officer himself has not admitted the proof he was supposed to admit.

Moral of the Story

If you are a taxpayer and you make a mistake, you will be punished.

If the Department makes a mistake, you still will be punished.

In GST, replies may be uploaded - but justice must be downloaded manually - from the High Court website.