Lead Briefing
A practitioner's checklist on Section 169 CGST Act — the six permitted modes of service, and a two-track response protocol for GST orders that were never properly served.
Read the briefingGST Update/Case Law
Delhi HC (DB) reaffirms the Luxmi Traders principle: uploading a GST SCN or order on the Common Portal alone is not valid service unless the taxpayer acknowledges it or files a reply. Two-track remedy applied across two connected petitions. Saraswati Printers & Fabgar Overseas v. Sales Tax Officer, decided 7 August 2026.
Read moreGSTAT Quashes ₹1.39 Lakh Detention Penalty
GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram quashes a ₹1.39 lakh Section 129(3) detention penalty because the MOV-09 order was passed 47 days after notice, breaching the mandatory 7-day limit — and holds valid tax invoices without an e-way bill show no mens rea. Siddhi Vinayak Automobiles v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, decided 14 August 2026.
Read moreLead Briefing
A practitioner's tracker for the Section 129(3) detention timeline — the two 7-day windows, and how to separate a documentation lapse from an evasion allegation.
Read moreDid You Know
Section 169 of the CGST Act lists six separate valid modes of service for a GST notice or order — hand delivery, registered/speed post, email, Common Portal upload, newspaper publication, and affixation — yet departments overwhelmingly rely on Common Portal upload alone, which is sufficient only once acknowledged or replied to.
Quiz of the Day
A detention penalty order arrives 47 days after notice, and the goods lacked an e-way bill but carried valid invoices. Is the order valid, and does the missing e-way bill alone prove evasion? Answer: No to both — the 47-day order breaches the mandatory 7-day limit under Section 129(3) and is void; valid invoices without an e-way bill showed no mens rea, per Siddhi Vinayak Automobiles v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST.