Madras High CourtTax LawAdministrative and Public Law

After No Reply to GST Portal Notices, Madras HC Reopens Assessment on 25% Payment and Says Officers Should Try Other Service Modes

Tamilnaddu Machine Worksv.Commercial Tax Officer

After No Reply to GST Portal Notices, Madras HC Reopens Assessment on 25% Payment and Says Officers Should Try Other Service Modes. Tamilnaddu Machine Works vs Commercial Tax Officer. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and was not given a personal hearing.

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 20 December 2025 and remanded the matter to the first respondent, conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax, after deducting amounts already paid, within four weeks of receipt of the order.

It also directed

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment; the respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and decide the matter on the merits and in accordance with law.

The third respondent bank was directed to defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the order and proof of payment. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 20 December 2025 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, concerning FY 2021–22.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4, 6, 8

The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it had not seen them and had not received the original show-cause notice; the respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4, 6, 8

The petitioner sought an opportunity to respond and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax, after deducting amounts already paid.

p. 3, 5 · ¶ 5, 11

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and was not given a personal hearing.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4, 6, 8

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, after credit for amounts already paid, justified conditional remand and release of the bank-account attachment.

p. 5 · ¶ 11

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognizes prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10

The Court held that portal service is sufficient, but where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the officer should consider other available modes under Section 169, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to ensure effective service.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10

The Court also applied the principle that an affected taxpayer should receive a personal hearing before an adverse assessment order is passed; no precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 169

04Reasoning

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the Court considered the absence of any response a reason for the officer to explore other modes of service rather than proceed solely on portal notices.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–11

The respondent also acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given. In light of these circumstances, and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax after accounting for prior payments, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the assessment order conditionally and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–11

05Holding

The Court set aside the order dated 20 December 2025 and remanded the matter to the first respondent, conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax, after deducting amounts already paid, within four weeks of receipt of the order.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11–12

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment; the respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and decide the matter on the merits and in accordance with law.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11–12

The third respondent bank was directed to defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the order and proof of payment. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11–12
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

Tamilnaddu Machine WorksvsCommercial Tax Officer

Madras High Court · October 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment