Madras High Court
Tax LawAdministrative and Public Law

GST officers must explore alternative Section 169 service modes when portal notices receive no response.

S V ENGINEERING vs THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-1

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 07, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
GST officers must explore alternative Section 169 service modes when portal notices receive no response.. S V ENGINEERING vs THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-1. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner challenged two orders dated 20 April 2026, issued under Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017, for financial years 2023–24 and 2022–23.

Source reference: pp. 1–3

The petitioner stated that notices had been uploaded to the GST portal but were not seen, and that no personal hearing was provided before the orders were passed.

Source reference: pp. 1–3

It also submitted that the disputed tax had been paid.

Source reference: pp. 1–3

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been afforded and agreed to remittal.

Source reference: p. 3
02

Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders should be set aside where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided before the orders were passed

Source reference: pp. 3–4

2. Whether, when a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the officer should explore other modes of service available under Section 169(1) of the GST Act

Source reference: pp. 4–5
03

Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of serving notices and orders; portal service is a valid mode, but the Court held that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should explore other available modes, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to make service effective.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

The Court also applied the requirement of a fair opportunity of personal hearing before final orders are made in the circumstances of this case.

Source reference: pp. 3–5

The proceedings arose under Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Acts, 2017.

Source reference: pp. 1–2
04

Reasoning

Although uploading notices to the GST portal constituted valid service, the petitioner’s non-response should have prompted the officer to consider other modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceed on the basis of portal service alone.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

The respondent also acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

In these circumstances, and noting the petitioner’s submission that the disputed tax had been paid, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the orders and remit the matters for fresh consideration.

Source reference: pp. 4–5
05

Holding

The Court allowed the writ petitions by setting aside the orders dated 20 April 2026 and remanding both matters to the respondent.

The petitioner was directed to file its reply or objections, with supporting documents, within three weeks of receiving the order.

Source reference: p. 5

Upon receipt, the respondent must issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and then pass appropriate orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

Source reference: p. 5

The petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Source reference: p. 6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

S V ENGINEERINGvsTHE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-1

Madras High Court · October 07, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment