The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment, declared that notices served via WhatsApp are no longer a valid mode of communication under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Court held that while this method was temporarily allowed during the COVID-19 pandemic, it cannot now be considered as a legally acceptable form of notice service.
The decision came in the case Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer (W.A. No. 973 of 2025), where the appellant challenged the confiscation of his truck by GST officials. The truck, owned by the petitioner Mathai M.V., was used to transport bilge water from INS Vikramaditya at Cochin Wharf. Later, the vehicle was detained on grounds of alleged tax evasion involving the consignor, Petro Chemicals.
The petitioner argued that he had no involvement or knowledge of the alleged tax evasion and was merely providing transport service. He further stated that he was not served any notice or copy of the detention and confiscation orders. His claim was that the only communication made by the department was through WhatsApp.
The Single Judge dismissed the petition, accepting the department's claim that the confiscation order was served and communicated via WhatsApp. However, on appeal, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji found serious flaws in the procedure.
“The statute prescribes the mode of notice. The notice stated to have been sent to the petitioner/owner through WhatsApp is not a mode of service contemplated under Section 169 of the Act of 2017,” the bench observed.
Read also:- 1984 Bribery Case: Delhi Court Shows Leniency to Aged Accused Due to Delayed Trial
The Court cited Section 130 of the CGST Act, which mandates that no confiscation can be done without providing the owner an opportunity of being heard. This opportunity must be granted by serving a proper notice through one of the approved methods listed under Section 169. These include personal delivery, post, email, publication, or affixing notice at the business or residential premises.
The Court also referenced decisions from the Gujarat High Court (Lakshay Logistics v. State of Gujarat) and the Madras High Court (Poomika Infra Developers v. State Tax Officer), which had previously ruled that proceedings under Section 130 without valid notice service are void.
“In such circumstances, we find that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court... would squarely apply to the case of the petitioner,” the Kerala High Court noted.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Refuses to Strike Down BNS 2023 Provisions on Waging War and Unlawful Assembly
As a result, the Court quashed both the Single Judge’s judgment and the confiscation order dated 21 December 2024. The matter has been remanded to the appropriate authority for fresh consideration.
“The respondents will issue notice to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 130 of the Act of 2017, and thereafter, pass orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing,” the Court directed.
The appellant was represented by Advocate Faizel K., while the department was represented by Senior Government Pleader Dr. Thushara James.
Case Title: Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 973 OF 2025