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

The petitioner challenged four assessment orders dated 28 March 2024, 30 October 2025, 27 March 2024 and 3 August 2024.

The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it had not seen them and had not received the original show-cause notices. The petitioner consequently did not reply, and the assessments were made without a personal hearing.

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided. The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in each petition and sought a fresh opportunity to present its case.

Whether the impugned assessment orders should be set aside and the matters remitted where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided.

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

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

The Court held that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider using another available statutory mode—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to secure effective service.

Portal upload may constitute valid service, but merely completing that formality without taking reasonable steps to achieve effective notice may not serve the purpose of the Act.

The Court also relied on the requirement of a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the assessment is finalised, as reflected in its finding that no personal hearing had been afforded.

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner said it was unaware of the notice and had not received its original. The respondent confirmed that no personal hearing had been given before the orders were made.

In those circumstances, the Court considered the assessments to have been made without an adequate opportunity for the petitioner to respond.

It further found that, after receiving no response through the portal, the officer should have explored other service modes under Section 169(1), preferably RPAD, rather than relying solely on portal upload.

Given the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court ordered remand subject to that condition.

The petitioner must file its objections 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 account attachment was directed to be lifted upon production of the order and proof of payment. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.