Facts
The petitioner challenged the respondent’s assessment order dated 8 September 2025 for the 2021–2022 assessment year.
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner stated that notices were uploaded to the GST portal, which it had not viewed, and that it therefore did not respond.
Source reference: p. 2–3It also contended that no personal hearing was provided before the order was made.
Source reference: p. 2–3The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been given and sought remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner offered to make that payment.
Source reference: p. 2, 5Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and was not afforded a personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 2–3, 62. Whether remand for fresh consideration could be made conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises the prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other available modes.
Source reference: p. 4While portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other prescribed modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective.
Source reference: p. 4–5The Court also proceeded on the principle that an affected party should have an opportunity to be heard before an adverse assessment order is passed.
Source reference: p. 3, 5Reasoning
The Court accepted that uploading the show-cause notice to the GST portal constituted a sufficient mode of service.
Source reference: p. 3–5However, given the petitioner’s non-response, the officer should have considered other modes of service available under Section 169(1), rather than proceeding on the basis of portal service alone.
Source reference: p. 3–5The respondent also acknowledged that no personal hearing had been afforded.
Source reference: p. 3, 5In these circumstances, and in light of the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remand appropriate.
Source reference: p. 3, 5Holding
The Court set aside the assessment order dated 8 September 2025 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
Source reference: p. 5The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 6Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171
Original Court PDF
SRS WHOLESALE KADDAIvsThe Assistant Commissioner
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
