GST authorities should explore alternative Section 169 service modes when portal notices receive no response.

The petitioner challenged the respondent’s order dated 5 August 2026 under Section 74A of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, contending that notices uploaded to the GST portal had not come to its authorised representative’s attention and that it had not been given a personal hearing before the order was passed.

The petitioner offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax and sought an opportunity to present its case.

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to remittal subject to payment of 10% of the disputed tax.

Whether, in the circumstances, portal-only service of notices followed by an ex parte order was sufficient, particularly where the taxpayer did not respond.

Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, subject to conditions.

The Court referred to Section 169(1) of the GST Act, which recognises prescribed modes of service, and observed that uploading a notice to the GST portal is a sufficient mode of service.

However, where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the issuing officer should consider other available modes under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to effect service effectively.

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing as a relevant procedural deficiency in the circumstances of this case.

Although portal service was legally sufficient, the Court considered that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to explore another mode of service rather than proceed on the basis of portal notices alone.

The respondent also admitted that no personal hearing had been afforded before the order was passed.

In light of these circumstances and the petitioner’s offer to pay 10% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remittal appropriate.

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment. The respondent must then give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

Any attachment over the petitioner’s bank account is to be lifted, and the bank is directed to release the attachment and de-freeze the account upon production of the Court’s order and proof of payment.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.