Seizure order annulled for lack of notice that a notification was available

Updated on 27 September 2026. The legal rule has not changed: the authorities must send the alert, but failing to do so does not, on its own, invalidate the notification. We have refined our reading of the Murcia High Court judgment and added the case law of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court (including its June 2026 judgment on how to count the 10 days), a National High Court judgment of June 2026 and what to do if your account is seized without you having seen the notifications.

If your company receives notifications electronically, you will usually find out about them through an email or text message telling you that something is waiting for you in the authority's sede electrónica (online office) or in the Dirección Electrónica Habilitada única (DEHú, the single government e-notification inbox). What if that alert never arrives and you only discover the debt once your bank account has been seized? The judgment of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia (TSJ, High Court of Justice) of the Region of Murcia of 2 October 2025 annulled a seizure in exactly that situation. But it needs to be read carefully: the lack of an alert does not automatically make the notification invalid. What matters is whether you actually learned of the decision and whether the authorities acted diligently.

The case: a seizure of 91,706 euros

A company had its bank accounts seized for 91,706 euros through a diligencia de embargo (seizure order) issued in procedimiento de apremio (enforcement proceedings). The order was made by the Agencia Tributaria de la Región de Murcia, that is, the regional tax authority, not the State Agencia Tributaria (AEAT, Spanish Tax Agency). The company argued that it had never seen the providencia de apremio (enforcement order) or the notifications of the comprobación limitada (limited tax review) from which the debt arose. The Tribunal Económico-Administrativo de la Región de Murcia (Murcia economic-administrative tribunal) dismissed its claims and the company appealed to the TSJ. The regional agency argued that, as a legal entity, the company was obliged to deal with it electronically and that the notifications had been made in accordance with the law.

The TSJ found for the company because several circumstances came together:

• There is no record of any alert for the earlier notifications: the only email on record relates to the notification the company's representative did access, and it was sent after the deadline had already passed.
• The company had never accessed the DEHú before the enforcement stage.
• With no access and no alert, the company could not learn of the decisions or defend itself: it was left defenceless (indefensión).

The TSJ starts from Supreme Court judgment 610/2022 (the lack of an alert does not, on its own, prevent the notification from being valid) and qualifies it with the later case law of the Constitutional Court and two judgments of the Audiencia Nacional (National High Court) of 7 and 19 April 2023: the missing alert is only irrelevant if the addressee accesses the notification anyway. It annulled the seizure order and made no order for costs, given the difficulty of the case.

This is a judgment of a regional High Court of Justice, given in a specific case, and it could be appealed in cassation: a good argument, not a general rule.

What the law says about the alert

The applicable rules have not changed in 2025 or 2026:

• Article 41.6 of Ley 39/2015 (Common Administrative Procedure Act): the authorities must send an alert to the email address or device you have provided, telling you that a notification is waiting in their online office or in the DEHú. However, failure to send this alert does not prevent the notification from being considered fully valid.
• Article 43 of Ley 39/2015: an electronic notification is served when you access its content. If the electronic channel is compulsory for you, or you chose it, the notification is deemed rejected after 10 calendar days from being made available without you accessing it, and the procedure continues. The Supreme Court has clarified (judgment of 12 June 2026, appeal 1735/2023) that those 10 days are counted from the day after the notification is made available, and that the time limit for appealing starts on the day after the notification is deemed served.
• Article 14.2 of Ley 39/2015: those obliged to deal electronically include, among others, legal entities and entities without legal personality. In dealings with the AEAT, Real Decreto (Royal Decree) 1363/2010 also obliges other taxpayers, whatever their legal form, such as those registered in the monthly VAT refund register (REDEME) or the large companies register.
• Article 43 of Real Decreto 203/2021: the alert is "merely informative" and is only sent if you have provided an email address or mobile number. If you are obliged and the authority does not have those details, in proceedings started by the authority itself the first notification must be on paper. In tax matters this regulation only applies on a supplementary basis (tenth additional provision), so how far it binds the Tax Agency is open to debate.

Article 109 of the Ley General Tributaria (LGT, General Tax Act) refers to these general rules, subject to the LGT's own special provisions. AEAT notifications can be viewed in its online office and in the DEHú; the old DEH inbox stopped being used on 31 December 2022.

So, does the lack of an alert invalidate the notification?

Not on its own. But the courts protect those who, through no fault of their own, never found out:

• STC 84/2022, of 27 June. The alerts were sent to an email address the authority had transcribed incorrectly, so they never arrived. The Constitutional Court accepts that this does not, on its own, invalidate the notification, but grants amparo (constitutional protection) under the right of defence (article 24.2 of the Constitution) because it prevented the person concerned from knowing that an electronic address had been assigned to him, that information was being requested and that penalty proceedings had been opened. If the authorities see that their electronic communications are having no effect, they must make an effort to reach the person concerned.
• STC 147/2022, of 29 November. A company obliged to receive AEAT notifications electronically never accessed them, and the letter informing it of its inclusion in the system had been collected by the sole director's under-age daughter. Knowing the company was not opening them, the Tax Agency should have used other channels: the Court annulled the VAT assessment even though these were not penalty proceedings.
• STS 1973/2024, of 17 December (appeal 3605/2023). The Supreme Court applied that case law to enforcement proceedings: a regional tax authority switched from paper to electronic notification without warning, the company never accessed its inbox, and the annulment of the enforcement order was upheld. The Supreme Court itself stresses that each case must be assessed on its facts and it laid down no general rule.
• National High Court judgment 564/2026, of 29 June. It treats notifications sent without alerts as valid, but annuls a 10,000-euro penalty for failing to answer three information requests the company did not know about: it relied on receiving the alerts, as usual, and complied as soon as it found out, so the fault required by article 183 LGT was missing.

In practice, these factors tend to carry weight:

What to do if your account has been seized and you never saw the notifications

1. Check the deadline straight away. Against an AEAT seizure order you can file a recurso de reposición (request for reconsideration) or a reclamación económico-administrativa (claim before the tax tribunals) within one month from the day after it was notified (articles 223 and 235 LGT). If you are obliged to use the electronic channel, the claim must be filed through the online office. If the seizure was ordered by a regional tax agency, as in the Murcia case, the same LGT system generally applies: an optional recurso de reposición or an economic-administrative claim within one month. For local taxes the appeal system is different. In any event, read the pie de recurso (the appeals notice at the end of the decision): it states which appeal is available, before which body and within what period.
2. Rebuild the history. In the DEHú and in the online office of the authority that notified you, note for each decision the date it was made available and the date it was accessed or deemed rejected, and use the Supreme Court's rule to work out when each notification was deemed served. Ask to see the file (article 223.2 LGT) and check whether alerts were sent and to which address.
3. Choose the right ground. The grounds are limited: against the seizure order you can argue, among others, failure to notify the enforcement order (article 170.3 LGT); against the enforcement order, failure to notify the assessment (article 167.3 LGT). Defencelessness must be shown with specific facts, not just the missing alert.
4. Decide whether to pay or provide security. Appealing does not, by itself, stop collection: to suspend it you generally have to provide a guarantee (articles 224 and 233 LGT). Paying does not stop you from pursuing the appeal and, if the decision is annulled, you will be refunded with late-payment interest (article 32 LGT). If there is already a seizure, the ordinary enforcement surcharge of 20% plus late-payment interest will normally apply (article 28 LGT); if the enforcement order was not validly notified to you, that is precisely what you should argue.
5. If the deadlines have already passed, you can still ask for a declaration of nullity (article 217.1.a LGT) if the decision infringed a right protected by amparo, such as effective judicial protection without defencelessness. This is the route taken by the company in STC 147/2022. It is exceptional and slow: the authority has one year to decide and, if it does not reply, the request is deemed refused.

How to avoid it happening to you

• Sign up for alerts from the AEAT (its "Suscripción a avisos informativos" service, by email or mobile) and from the DEHú, which are separate. Register an email address and, where the system allows it, a mobile number, and update them when the person in charge changes.
• Check the DEHú and the AEAT online office at least once a week. The 10 days are calendar days: weekends, public holidays and August all count.
• Use the "días de cortesía" (courtesy days). In the AEAT electronic notification system you can choose up to 30 calendar days a year without notifications, requesting them at least 7 calendar days in advance (Orden EHA/3552/2011, a ministerial order). This is an AEAT mechanism, not one offered by every authority.
• Authorise your adviser to receive notifications, while still checking them yourself.
• Do not forget other authorities. State bodies must use the DEHú, but town councils and regional governments may notify only through their own online offices.

Frequently asked questions

If I do not receive the alert, is the notification void?

Not on its own. What followed may be annulled if, in addition, you did not learn of the decision through no fault of your own and the authority knew, or could have known, that its notifications were not reaching you. Each case has to be looked at individually.

I am self-employed: must I receive Tax Agency notifications electronically?

As an individual, generally not, except in specific cases such as being in the REDEME or the large companies register. If you practise a profession that requires compulsory membership of a professional body, check your situation: the law obliges those professionals for the formalities they carry out in the course of their profession (article 14.2.c of Ley 39/2015). And if you chose the electronic channel, the 10-day rule applies to you too.

Does appealing stop the seizure?

Not automatically. To suspend collection you generally have to guarantee the debt. There are exceptions, for example if you show that the debt had already been paid or was time-barred (article 165.2 LGT).

Has your account been seized without warning?

If your account has been seized, or you have discovered a debt with the Tax Agency, your regional government or your town council that you knew nothing about, the first step is to pin down the deadline and rebuild how and when each decision was notified. You can book a tax consultation and we will go through the file with you. If your concern is a penalty for not answering information requests, you may also find our article on the right not to incriminate yourself in tax inspections useful.

Legislation and sources

• Ley 39/2015, of 1 October, on Common Administrative Procedure (arts. 14, 41 and 43), consolidated text
• Ley 58/2003, of 17 December, General Tax Act (arts. 28, 32, 109, 165, 167, 170, 183, 217, 223, 224, 233 and 235), consolidated text
• Real Decreto 203/2021, of 30 March, Regulation on the electronic operation of the public sector (arts. 42 to 45 and tenth additional provision)
• Real Decreto 1363/2010, of 29 October, compulsory electronic notifications from the AEAT
• Orden EHA/3552/2011, of 19 December, days on which the AEAT will not make notifications available
• General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ): press release on the Murcia High Court of Justice judgment annulling the seizure (ECLI:ES:TSJMU:2025:1653)
• Constitutional Court, STC 84/2022, of 27 June
• Constitutional Court, STC 147/2022, of 29 November
• Supreme Court, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Section 2, judgment 1973/2024, of 17 December (cassation appeal 3605/2023)
• Supreme Court, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, judgment of 12 June 2026 (cassation appeal 1735/2023)
• National High Court, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Section 2, judgment 564/2026, of 29 June (appeal 667/2020)
• Spanish Tax Agency: frequently asked questions on electronic notifications