01Facts
The respondent issued a GST assessment order in Form DRC-07 on 25 November 2025, after notices were uploaded to the GST portal.
pp. 2–4The petitioner stated that it was unaware of the notices, which had been placed under the portal’s “Additional Notices” tab, and had not been furnished with the original show-cause notice.
pp. 2–4The petitioner did not respond within the prescribed time, and the assessment was made without a personal hearing.
pp. 2–4Its subsequent rectification application was rejected on 19 June 2026.
pp. 2–4The petitioner sought to have both orders set aside and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax; the respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been given and agreed to remittal subject to that payment.
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether the assessment and consequential rectification orders should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the petitioner claimed not to have received effective notice and was not afforded a personal hearing.
pp. 3–5ii.2. Whether remittal for fresh consideration should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
pp. 3, 5–603Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises the modes by which notices and other documents may be served; portal service is a sufficient mode, but the Court held that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded in the portal, the officer should consider other available modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to make service effective.
pp. 4–5The Court also proceeded on the requirement that the petitioner be given an opportunity to respond and a personal hearing before fresh orders are made.
pp. 3, 5–6No judicial precedents were cited.
Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169
04Reasoning
Although uploading notices to the GST portal constituted a valid mode of service, the petitioner’s claimed lack of awareness, the absence of a response to the notices, and the respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been provided led the Court to find that the assessment had been made without an effective opportunity to be heard.
pp. 3–5The Court considered that an officer should explore other service modes under Section 169(1), rather than rely on portal notices alone in these circumstances.
pp. 4–5In view of the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remittal appropriate on that condition.
pp. 3, 5–605Holding
The Court set aside the orders dated 25 November 2025 and 19 June 2026 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax over and above the statutory deposit within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order; the setting aside takes effect from the date of payment.
p. 5The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
pp. 5–6On receipt of the reply, the respondent must issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and then pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
pp. 5–6The writ petition was disposed of without costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were dealt with as stated in the order.
p. 6Original Court PDF
M/s.Vanijya Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd.,vsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC),
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
