Madras High Court
Tax LawAdministrative and Public Law

GST authorities must ensure effective notice service and a hearing before making adverse assessments.

T.C.MAHENDRAN, vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST),

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 08, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
GST authorities must ensure effective notice service and a hearing before making adverse assessments.. T.C.MAHENDRAN, vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST),. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner challenged the respondent’s assessment order dated 18 March 2024, made in proceedings for 2018–19 and communicated in Form GST DRC-07.

Source reference: pp. 1–2, para. 4

The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice and hearing notice had only been uploaded to the GST portal, that no physical copies had been received, and that the order was passed without an effective opportunity to respond or be heard.

Source reference: pp. 1–2, para. 4

The petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and sought an opportunity to file objections and attend a personal hearing. The respondent did not oppose remand on that condition.

Source reference: p. 3, para. 5
02

Issues

Whether the assessment order should be set aside where the petitioner claimed not to have received the portal-uploaded notices and was not afforded an effective opportunity to be heard.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 7–8

Whether setting aside the order and remanding the matter could be conditioned on the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax.

Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–5; pp. 4–5, para. 9
03

Law Applied

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, including the requirement that a person affected by an assessment be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present their case and a personal hearing.

Source reference: p. 4, para. 8

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

Source reference: pp. 3–4, para. 7
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal and accepted the petitioner’s claim that no physical copy was served and that the petitioner was unaware of the notice.

Source reference: p. 3, para. 7

In the absence of a reply, the respondent should have used an effective available mode of service; the Court considered that reliance on portal uploads alone, in the circumstances, left the petitioner without an opportunity to establish the case at a personal hearing.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 7–8

The resulting denial of an opportunity to be heard warranted setting aside the order and reconsideration, subject to the petitioner’s offered deposit.

Source reference: pp. 4–5, para. 9
05

Holding

The Court set aside the order dated 18 March 2024, conditional on the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the judgment; any amount paid after the assessment order may be deducted from that deposit.

The petitioner must file objections and supporting documents within two weeks thereafter. On receipt, the respondent must issue 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and then decide the matter on the merits and in accordance with law.

Source reference: p. 5, para. 9(iii)–(iv)

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Source reference: p. 5, para. 10
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

T.C.MAHENDRAN,vsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST),

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