Facts
The petitioner challenged the respondent’s Form GST DRC-07 order dated 12 March 2026 for the tax period 2019–2020.
Source reference: p. 1–3The show-cause notice and other communications had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not submitted a reply.
Source reference: p. 1–3The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been afforded.
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in return for an opportunity to present its case.
Source reference: p. 1–3The respondent agreed to remand the matter subject to that payment.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was provided.
Source reference: p. 2–42. Whether remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax, and what directions should govern the fresh proceedings.
Source reference: p. 4–5Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises the prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other modes such as registered post.
Source reference: p. 3–4Portal service is a valid mode; however, where the taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should explore other available modes—preferably RPAD—to make service effective.
Source reference: p. 3–4An ex parte order passed after merely completing formalities, without an effective opportunity to respond and be heard, risks avoidable further litigation.
Source reference: p. 3–4Reasoning
The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner claimed it was unaware of the notice and had not received its original.
Source reference: p. 3–5Although portal service was valid, the absence of any response called for the respondent to consider other modes of service under Section 169(1).
Source reference: p. 3–5The Court also relied on the respondent’s acknowledgment that no personal hearing had been provided.
Source reference: p. 3–5In view of these circumstances, and the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.
Source reference: p. 3–5Holding
The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 12 March 2026 and remanding the matter, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks thereafter.
Source reference: p. 5–6The respondent must then give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5–6Any bank-account attachment is to be lifted, and the respondent must direct the bank to release the account upon proof of payment.
Source reference: p. 5–6No costs were ordered.
Source reference: p. 5–6Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171
Original Court PDF
Impulse Drives and MotorsvsThe Assistant Commissioner ST
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
