Facts
The petitioner challenged an ex parte GST order dated 8 December 2025, contending that the show-cause notice and personal-hearing notice had only been uploaded to the GST portal and that no physical copies were served. The petitioner said she had not become aware of the notices, and sought a fresh opportunity to respond and be heard.
Source reference: paras. 4–6, pp. 2–3She offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand. The respondents did not oppose remand on that condition.
Source reference: paras. 4–6, pp. 2–3Issues
1. Whether the impugned order should be set aside where the petitioner claimed that notices were uploaded only on the GST portal and she had no effective opportunity to respond or attend a personal hearing
Source reference: paras. 4, 7–8, pp. 2–42. Whether setting aside the order and remanding the matter should be conditioned on the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax demand
Source reference: paras. 4–5, pp. 2–3Law Applied
The Court applied the principles of natural justice, including the requirement that a person affected by an assessment be afforded an effective opportunity to respond and a personal hearing.
Source reference: para. 7, p. 4It observed that where the statute provides alternative modes of serving notice, the authority should adopt an effective mode rather than repeatedly relying on portal uploads when no response is received.
Source reference: para. 7, p. 4Reasoning
The Court accepted the petitioner’s submission that she had not received physical copies of the notices and was unaware of the portal uploads. Since the petitioner had not responded and had not been afforded a personal hearing, the Court concluded that the order had been made without an effective opportunity to present her case, violating natural justice.
Source reference: paras. 7–9, pp. 4–5It therefore considered a fresh determination warranted, subject to the petitioner’s offered 25% deposit.
Source reference: paras. 7–9, pp. 4–5Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 8 December 2025, conditional on the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order, less any amount paid after the assessment order.
The petitioner must file her reply and supporting documents within two weeks after the deposit. The first respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and decide the matter on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: paras. 9–10, pp. 4–5The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: paras. 9–10, pp. 4–5Original Court PDF
The Global Hospitality,vsThe Commercial Tax officer(ST)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
