GST officers must pursue alternative statutory service modes when portal notices go unanswered before passing ex parte assessments.

The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 25 May 2024 for assessment year 2021–2022.

The respondent had uploaded notices to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not filed a reply.

The petitioner alleged that the assessment was made without a personal hearing and stated that it had paid the disputed tax.

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and sought remittal of the matter.

The High Court considered whether the assessment should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

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

2. Whether, in the absence of a response to portal notices, the respondent should have explored other modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act

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

Although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to repeated notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD)—to ensure effective service.

An ex parte assessment made without a meaningful opportunity to be heard may fail to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

The Court accepted that uploading the show-cause notice to the GST portal constituted a recognised mode of service.

However, given the petitioner’s non-response and the absence of a personal hearing, the officer should have considered other modes of service available under Section 169 rather than proceeding to an ex parte assessment.

The respondent’s acknowledgement that no personal hearing had been provided, together with the petitioner’s payment of the disputed tax, supported remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of receiving the order.

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

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.