Email Service Of Hearing Notices Valid Under Sec. 169

Centax Editorial Board

January 21, 2026

• 2 min. read

Service Of Hearing Notices Under Section 169

Case Details: Mathur Polymers vs. Union of India (2026) 38 Centax 135 (S.C.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Sanjay Kumar & Alok Aradhe, JJ.
S/Shri Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Akhil Krishan Maggu, Vikas Sareen, Ms. Oshin Maggu, Aryan Nagpal, Ms. Mehak Sharma, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Saurabh Arora, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava & Ayush Mittal, Advs. for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

A Special Leave Petition was filed challenging the order of the High Court wherein a proprietary concern had questioned the validity of the Order-in-Original on the ground of non-receipt of notices for personal hearing. It was contended that principles of natural justice were violated as hearing notices were allegedly not served. The departmental record showed that all notices were sent by e-mail to the registered e-mail address of the petitioner as available on the GST portal, where the registered e-mail and mobile number of the petitioner were reflected and the column relating to the name and contact of GST practitioner was shown as ‘NA’. The High Court noted that the writ petition was silent on the fact that the e-mails were sent to the petitioner’s registered e-mail address and that reliance placed on income-tax jurisprudence was misconceived, while also placing reliance on Rishi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no good ground or reason was made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. It was held that service of notices for personal hearing by sending e-mails to the registered e-mail address of the petitioner constituted valid service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act and the Delhi GST Act. The Court noted that the e-mail address used by the Department was the registered e-mail of the proprietor and not that of any practitioner, as reflected on the GST portal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition.