01Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 24 November 2025 under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act for FY 2021–22.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1, 4–6It submitted that notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, which it had not checked, and that the respondent passed the order without giving it a personal hearing.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1, 4–6The petitioner also stated that it had paid more than 50% of the disputed tax.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1, 4–6The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and requested remand.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1, 4–602Issues
i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–10ii.2. Whether, after setting aside the assessment order, the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration and the petitioner’s bank accounts de-frozen
p. 5 · ¶ 1103Law Applied
Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act provides the statutory basis for the disputed assessment.
p. 1Under Section 169(1), service through the GST portal is a valid mode, but other prescribed modes of service are also available; where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the officer should explore another mode, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to make service effective.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10The Court also applied the principle that an affected taxpayer should be afforded a personal hearing before an adverse decision is made.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4, 6Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 169
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that portal upload constitutes valid service, but considered that proceeding ex parte despite the taxpayer’s non-response, without exploring other available service modes, risked reducing service to a formality.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6, 8–11The respondent also admitted that no personal hearing had been given.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6, 8–11In these circumstances, and noting the petitioner’s submission that it had paid more than 50% of the disputed tax, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the assessment and remit the matter for reconsideration.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6, 8–1105Holding
The Court set aside the assessment order dated 24 November 2025 and remanded the matter to the respondent.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11–12The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of receiving the order; thereafter, the respondent must give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11–12The Court also directed that the petitioner’s bank accounts be de-frozen immediately upon production of the order.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11–12The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11–12Original Court PDF
M/s.Rajkrishna Aditya Auto Store Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Commissioner, (ST)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
