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

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 28 July 2023 and a consequential recovery notice dated 30 July 2026.

Its GST registration had been cancelled on 21 December 2022.

The petitioner said it was unaware of notices uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal and had not received the show-cause notice; the respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.

The petitioner undertook to pay ₹6,343 in interest and sought an opportunity to respond on the merits.

1. Whether, in the circumstances—including the petitioner’s cancelled GST registration and lack of response to portal notices—the respondent’s service efforts and failure to provide a personal hearing warranted setting aside the assessment and recovery orders

2. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration subject to payment of the stated interest amount

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

The Court stated that portal service is sufficient, but where a taxpayer does not respond, the officer should consider other available statutory modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective.

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing, in the circumstances of this case, as a violation of natural justice.

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner’s registration had been cancelled and it claimed not to have known of the notices.

The Court considered that the respondent had not explored other modes of service, including sending communications to the petitioner’s email address, and had not afforded a personal hearing; the respondent acknowledged the latter omission.

The Court therefore found the service efforts inadequate in the circumstances and the resulting ex parte orders inconsistent with natural justice.

Given the petitioner’s undertaking to pay ₹6,343 in interest, the Court ordered remand on that condition.

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.

The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, consider the petitioner’s response, and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.