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

The petitioner challenged adverse GST orders concerning financial years 2017–2018 and 2019–2020.

The notices had been uploaded to the GST common portal, but the petitioner said he was unaware of them and did not file replies.

The petitioner and the State accepted that no personal hearing had been provided before the orders were made.

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in each case in return for an opportunity to present his case.

The judgment refers to the orders as dated 31 January 2025 and 27 August 2024; the prayer on page 1 identifies the first order as dated 30 January 2025.

Whether the assessment orders should be set aside and the matters remitted where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was given.

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

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief against the challenged orders.

Under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, service through the GST portal is a valid mode of service; however, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should explore other prescribed modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD), to achieve effective service rather than merely formal compliance.

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing as a ground relevant to remand.

Although portal service was legally sufficient, the Court considered that the petitioner’s failure to respond should have prompted the officer to explore other service methods under Section 169(1), rather than proceed ex parte without a personal hearing.

The State fairly acknowledged that no hearing had been provided and agreed to remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

In those circumstances, the Court set aside the orders conditionally and directed fresh consideration.

The petitioner must file replies and supporting documents within three weeks after 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 bank was directed to defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the order and proof of payment.

No costs were awarded.