Facts
The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Sree Hari Enterprises, challenged three assessment orders dated 20 May 2026 and 4 June 2026.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 3–5He stated that the notices were uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, of which he was unaware, and that no personal hearing was provided before the orders were made.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 3–5The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been afforded.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 3–5The petitioner offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax for each assessment.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 3–5Issues
Whether the assessment orders should be set aside and the matters remanded where notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 7–9Whether remand should be conditional on payment of 10% of the disputed tax for each assessment.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 10Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for legally recognised modes of service, including service by uploading notices on the GST portal and other prescribed modes.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 8–9The Court held that, although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the officer should consider other available modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due, to make service effective.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 8–9The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, including the requirement to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before making the fresh decision.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 10(iii)Reasoning
The Court accepted that the notices had been uploaded on the portal but considered the absence of any response a reason for the officer to explore other modes of service under Section 169(1), rather than proceed only on the basis of portal uploads.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 8–10The respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been given, together with the petitioner’s offer to pay 10% of the disputed tax, supported setting aside the orders and remitting the matters for fresh consideration subject to that payment.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 8–10Holding
The Court set aside the three assessment orders and remanded the matters to the respondent, conditional on the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax for each assessment within four weeks of receiving the order.
The petitioner must file replies and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 10The respondent must then give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 10The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.
Source reference: p. 8, para. 11Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171
Original Court PDF
D DhilipkumarvsThe Commercial Tax Officer
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
