Madras High Court
Tax LawAdministrative and Public Law

GST assessments passed without effective notice and personal hearing violate natural justice.

Mr. Loganathan, vs State Tax Officer,

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 08, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
GST assessments passed without effective notice and personal hearing violate natural justice.. Mr. Loganathan, vs State Tax Officer,. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 29 October 2025 and 27 January 2026 for the assessment periods 2021–22 and 2022–23. He contended that the show-cause notices and hearing notices had only been uploaded to the GST portal, that he had not received physical copies, and that he had no effective opportunity to respond or attend a personal hearing.

Source reference: pp. 2–4

He offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment period and sought reconsideration of the assessments. The respondent agreed that the orders could be set aside and the matters remanded on that condition.

Source reference: pp. 3–4
02

Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders should be set aside where the petitioner claimed that portal-only service of the notices had not provided an effective opportunity to respond and be heard

Source reference: pp. 3–5

2. Whether remand for reconsideration could be conditioned on the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment period

Source reference: pp. 3–5
03

Law Applied

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement to provide a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard before an adverse order is made.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

It also observed that, where the statute provides alternative modes of service, the authority should adopt an effective mode rather than repeatedly relying on portal uploads when no response is received.

Source reference: p. 4
04

Reasoning

The Court accepted the petitioner’s account that the notices had been uploaded to the GST portal and that physical copies had not been served. Given the absence of a response, the availability of alternative statutory modes of service, and the lack of a personal hearing, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not received an adequate opportunity to establish his case.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

It therefore found a violation of natural justice and considered remand appropriate, subject to the petitioner’s offered deposit.

Source reference: pp. 4–5
05

Holding

The Court set aside the three impugned assessment orders on condition that the petitioner deposit 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment period within four weeks of receiving the order, after deducting any amount already paid.

The petitioner must file objections and supporting documents within the following two weeks. The respondent must then consider them, give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing, hear the petitioner, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

Source reference: p. 5

The writ petitions were disposed of without costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Source reference: p. 6
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

Mr. Loganathan,vsState Tax Officer,

Madras High Court · October 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment