GST officers must explore alternative statutory service modes when portal notices go unanswered.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 26 June 2023 for FY 2021–22.

It contended that notices and communications had been uploaded to the GST portal, including under “View Additional Notices and Orders,” and that it was unaware of them; it also complained that no personal hearing had been provided before the order was passed.

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been given and consented to remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

The petitioner offered to pay that amount and stated that 90% of the tax amount had already been paid.

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the taxpayer claimed not to have been aware of them, and no personal hearing was provided.

2. Whether the matter should be remanded subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax and, consequentially, whether the bank-account attachment should be lifted.

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

The Court held that where portal notices receive no response, the issuing officer should consider using another available statutory mode—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective, rather than merely completing formalities.

The Court also applied the principle that an affected taxpayer should be afforded a personal hearing before an adverse order is made; it cited no precedent.

Although portal service is legally sufficient, the Court considered the petitioner’s claimed lack of awareness alongside the absence of any personal hearing and the respondent’s admission on that point.

It observed that repeated non-response to portal notices should prompt the officer to explore other modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceed ex parte after only formal portal service.

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

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

The respondent was directed to lift the bank attachment upon proof of payment; if the respondent fails to communicate its release, the petitioner may present proof of deposit and the order to the bank, which must then defreeze the account.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.