An ex parte GST assessment was set aside after notice was returned unserved, subject to a 25% deposit.

The petitioner challenged the first respondent’s order dated 21 November 2025 under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, including the Form GST DRC-07 summary, for FY 2021–22.

The petitioner said the notice sent by RPAD was not received and that it therefore had no opportunity to reply or attend a personal hearing; the order was passed ex parte, and the petitioner’s bank account was attached.

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for remand.

The Additional Government Pleader stated that the notice had been returned unserved and fairly conceded that remand could be ordered subject to that payment.

1. Whether the ex parte order should be set aside and the tax proceedings remanded for fresh consideration where the notice was returned unserved and the petitioner had not replied or received a personal hearing.

2. Whether the petitioner’s bank-account attachment should be lifted upon setting aside the assessment order, subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 was the statutory basis of the impugned tax order.

The Court proceeded on the principles of natural justice, requiring a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard before an adverse decision is made.

Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court set aside the ex parte order and remanded the matter on terms; it cited no precedent.

The Court noted that the notice had been sent by RPAD but returned unserved, leaving the petitioner unaware of the proceedings and unable to submit a reply; the resulting order was therefore ex parte.

In light of those circumstances, the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, and the State’s concession to remand on that condition, the Court set aside the order and directed a fresh determination after the petitioner filed objections and received notice of a personal hearing.

Because the underlying order was set aside, the Court held that the bank attachment could not continue, but made release conditional on proof of the required payment.

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

Any amount already paid or recovered could be adjusted against the 25% payment.

Upon proof of payment, the respondents were directed to release the bank attachment; if they failed to communicate the release, the petitioner could present proof of deposit and the order directly to the bank, which was directed to defreeze the account.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was allowed.