GST Firm’s Tax Orders Set Aside On 25% Deposit; Madras HC Says Officers Should Try Other Service Modes When Portal Notices Go Unanswered

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment orders should be set aside and the matters remitted where notices were uploaded on the GST portal, but the petitioner did not respond and was not given a personal hearing.

The court held

The Court set aside the three assessment orders and remanded the matters for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax in each petition within four weeks of receiving the order.

It also directed

Setting aside the orders takes effect upon payment.

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

The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 27 January 2025, 14 May 2025 and 20 March 2026 for three assessment years.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–8

The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not received the original show-cause notices.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–8

It had not filed replies, and the respondent admitted that no personal hearing was provided before the orders were made.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–8

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in each petition and sought remand.

p. 3, 5 · ¶ 5–6, 11

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment orders should be set aside and the matters remitted where notices were uploaded on the GST portal, but the petitioner did not respond and was not given a personal hearing.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6, 8

ii.2. Whether remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax in each petition.

p. 5 · ¶ 11

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the common portal and other modes.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10

While portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the proper officer should consider other available statutory modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to achieve effective service; mere formal compliance followed by an ex parte order may not serve the Act’s objectives.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10

The Court also applied the requirement of a meaningful opportunity to be heard before adverse orders are passed.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6, 8, 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that uploading the show-cause notices to the GST portal was a valid mode of service, but considered the petitioner’s lack of response a reason for the officer to explore other modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceed through what the Court described as empty formalities.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10

The respondent also admitted that no personal hearing had been afforded.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6, 8, 11

In these circumstances, and given the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax for each petition, the Court found remand appropriate.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6, 8, 11