WhatsApp notifications not considered valid under Goods and Services Tax (GST) laws, according to Kerala High Court ruling
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has set aside the confiscation of a transport vehicle under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) on June 24, 2025. The case, *Mathai M.V. vs. The Senior Enforcement Officer & Anr.*, addressed the issue of service of notice under the CGST Act, particularly focusing on the validity of a notice sent via WhatsApp.
The Court, presided over by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan, was hearing an appeal filed by a truck owner challenging a single-judge order that had upheld the seizure of his vehicle. The truck was detained on November 25, 2024, and a confiscation order was passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act on December 21, 2024.
The appellant argued that he had no knowledge of any tax violation by the consignor and that his vehicle had merely been hired to transport goods. The Court held that notice through WhatsApp is not a mode of service contemplated under Section 169 of the Act of 2017. The Court found that there was no record of notice having been served on the owner through any of the methods prescribed in Section 169 of the CGST Act.
The Court 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. The matter was remanded to the competent authority to be decided afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner and granting an opportunity of hearing within three weeks of the petitioner's appearance.
Senior Government Pleader Thushara James represented the respondents, while advocate Faizel K represented the petitioner.
Under Section 169 of the CGST Act, notices (including those under Section 130) must be served by one of the following methods: by post or courier (Registered Post or Speed Post with acknowledgment due), by email (if email is available on records), by making it available on the common portal (GST portal), or by affixture at the last known address if none of the above modes are practicable. WhatsApp, as determined by the Kerala High Court in *Mathai MV*, is not one of the prescribed methods under Section 169, and any notice served via WhatsApp is invalid unless there is specific statutory permission—beyond the temporary allowances made during the pandemic.
The Court's ruling clarifies that, unless a notice is served by one of the prescribed methods under Section 169 of the CGST Act, any confiscation or adverse order based on non-compliant notice (such as via WhatsApp) is invalid and liable to be set aside. This decision is a crucial precedent for future cases under the CGST Act, ensuring that due process is followed in the service of notices and the protection of the rights of individuals against arbitrary actions by authorities.
- The ruling in the Mathai MV case by the Kerala High Court has specified that WhatsApp is not a valid method for serving notices under Section 169 of the CGST Act, which may impact the finance industry as it pertains to business communications during notice issuance.
- In the event a notice, such as one under Section 130 of the CGST Act, is served via an unprescribed method like WhatsApp, any subsequent confiscation or adverse order based on non-compliant notice could potentially be deemed invalid, according to the Kerala High Court's ruling in the Mathai MV case, which may have implications for various industries, particularly finance and business.
%20laws%2C%20according%20to%20Kerala%20High%20Court%20ruling){kind=link}