GST authorities must pursue alternative Section 169 service modes when portal notices receive no response.

The petitioner challenged a Form GST DRC-07 order dated 20 February 2025, concerning financial year 2020–21, which confirmed proposals alleging incorrect tax liability in its GSTR-3B returns.

The petitioner said its GST registration had been cancelled on its application with effect from 30 June 2024, it was unaware of notices uploaded to the GST portal after cancellation, and it had not received a personal hearing or an effective opportunity to submit records and explanations.

The respondent stated that notices had been uploaded to the portal, but acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided; the respondent supported remand subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.

The petitioner agreed to make that deposit.

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner received no personal hearing and disputed effective service after cancellation of its registration.

2. Whether remand should be conditional on the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax.

The proceedings concerned assessment under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; the petitioner invoked the requirement of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.

The Court referred to Section 169(1) of the GST Act, under which service may be effected through the modes prescribed by that provision.

Although portal upload is a valid mode of service, 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—to make service effective and avoid merely formal compliance.

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing as a violation of natural justice in the circumstances of this case.

The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded only to the GST portal, after the petitioner’s registration was cancelled, and that no physical notice was served.

It accepted that portal upload is a valid mode, but reasoned that the officer should have considered other modes under Section 169(1), particularly given the absence of a response and the circumstances following cancellation.

The respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been afforded, together with the petitioner’s willingness to deposit 20% of the disputed tax, led the Court to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.

The respondent must then issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.

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