GST authorities must ensure effective notice service before proceeding ex parte when portal notices go unanswered.

The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order dated 29 November 2025 and a consequential notice dated 21 August 2026.

It contended that the show-cause notice and hearing notice had only been uploaded to the GST Portal, and that it had received no physical copies or effective opportunity to respond or be heard.

The petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and sought remand for fresh adjudication.

The State accepted that the matter could be reconsidered on that condition.

Whether the assessment order was liable to be set aside for failure to provide the petitioner an effective opportunity to respond and be heard.

Whether the assessment and consequential recovery notice should be set aside subject to a deposit and remand for fresh adjudication.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, including the requirement that a person affected by an assessment receive a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard.

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

The Court accepted that the notices had been uploaded to the GST Portal but noted the petitioner’s claim that it had not become aware of them and had received no physical copies.

Since the petitioner had not responded, the authority should have used an effective available mode of service instead of relying on repeated portal uploads. In the circumstances, the assessment had been made without an effective opportunity for a personal hearing, violating natural justice.

The Court therefore considered remand appropriate, on the petitioner’s undertaking to deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within two weeks thereafter. The first respondent must then provide 14 clear days’ notice of a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

Upon proof of the 25% payment, the bank was directed to defreeze the petitioner’s account and notify the first respondent. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.