Facts
The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 23 December 2025 and 28 October 2025, and the consequential summaries in Form GST DRC-07.
Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 1, 3–5The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not received the show-cause notices.
Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 1, 3–5The respondents acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.
Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 1, 3–5The petitioner sought remand and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment order.
Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 1, 3–5Issues
Whether the assessment orders should be set aside and remitted where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided
Source reference: pp. 4–6, paras. 5, 7–10Whether remand should be made conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment order
Source reference: pp. 3–4, 10Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the common portal; the Court accepted that portal upload constitutes sufficient service.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 8–9However, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the issuing officer should consider other available modes under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to achieve effective service.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 8–9The Court also applied the principles of natural justice in requiring a personal hearing before fresh orders were made.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 10(iii)The petitions were brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
Although portal upload was a valid mode of service, the Court considered the lack of response to the notices and the absence of a personal hearing.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 7–10It held that the officer should have considered other available methods of service rather than proceed ex parte after relying only on portal notices.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 7–10In light of these circumstances, and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment, the Court found remand appropriate.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 7–10Holding
The Court set aside both assessment orders and their consequential DRC-07 summaries, and remanded the matters for fresh consideration, conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax for each order within four weeks of receipt of the Court’s order.
The setting aside takes effect from the date of payment.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, para. 10(i)–(iii)The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment; the respective respondent must then give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, para. 10(i)–(iii)The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.
Source reference: p. 7, para. 11Acts & 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
Sruthi EnterprisesvsState Tax Officer
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
