Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 4 December 2025.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–6The show-cause notice and other communications had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it had not seen them and therefore had not replied.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–6The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided before the order was passed.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–6The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in return for an opportunity to present its case, and the respondent agreed to remand on that condition.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–6Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was provided
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 6, 82. Whether remand for fresh consideration should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax
Source reference: pp. 3, 5, paras. 5–6, 11Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises the prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other modes such as registered post acknowledgment due (RPAD).
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 9–10Although portal service is sufficient service, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the officer should consider other prescribed modes to achieve effective service.
Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 6, 8–10An assessment confirming show-cause proposals without a personal hearing may be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 6, 8–10No precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court accepted that portal upload constituted a valid mode of service, but considered that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to explore other modes of service under Section 169(1), preferably RPAD.
Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 8–11The Court also noted that no personal hearing had been given before the assessment order was made.
Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 8–11In light of these circumstances, and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found remand appropriate.
Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 8–11Holding
The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the assessment order dated 4 December 2025 and remanding the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 11; p. 6, para. 12The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 11; p. 6, para. 12No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 12Acts & 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
M/s. SIVASELVI STORES (33AQPPB5130R1ZL)vsTHE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER 1
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
