GST officers should pursue alternative Section 169 service modes before passing ex parte orders.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 2 December 2025 and a consequential recovery notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 8 May 2026.

It said the notices had been uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, which it had not seen, and that the assessment was made without a personal hearing.

The respondents accepted that no personal hearing had been provided.

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax as a condition of remand.

The Court observed that the show-cause notice had been uploaded on the portal and considered whether further steps should have been taken to effect service.

1. Whether, where the taxpayer did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal, the assessing officer should have explored other modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act.

2. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted when it was passed without a personal hearing, subject to payment of part of the disputed tax.

The Court applied Section 169 of the GST Act, which provides for valid modes of service, including service by registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD).

It recognised that uploading a notice on the GST portal is a sufficient mode of service, but held that where the taxpayer does not respond, the officer should explore other available modes—preferably RPAD—to ensure effective service.

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing as relevant to the fairness of the assessment process.

Although portal service was legally sufficient, the Court considered that the petitioner had not become aware of the notices and that the respondents had provided no personal hearing.

In those circumstances, it found that merely completing formalities by portal upload, without exploring other available service modes despite the lack of response, was inadequate to ensure effective notice and risked further litigation.

Given the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax and the respondents’ agreement to remand on that condition, the Court set aside the assessment order and directed fresh consideration.

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

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

No costs were ordered; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.