GST officers should pursue alternative statutory service when taxpayers do not respond to portal notices.

The petitioner challenged two assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07, dated 9 and 24 December 2025, for assessment year 2021–2022.

The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said he was unaware of them and consequently did not submit replies.

The orders were passed without a personal hearing.

The petitioner sought an opportunity to present his case and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in each petition; the respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and consented to remand subject to that payment.

1. Whether the assessment orders should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the petitioner did not respond and was not afforded a personal hearing.

2. Whether remand for fresh consideration 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 authorised modes.

Although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the authority should consider using another prescribed mode—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective.

The Court also applied the principle that an assessment should not be confirmed without affording the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing.

The Court accepted that uploading the show-cause notices on the GST portal constituted a valid mode of service.

However, given the petitioner’s non-response, the authority should have considered other modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceeding to confirm the proposals without a personal hearing.

The respondent admitted that no personal hearing had been given.

In these circumstances, and in light of the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remand appropriate on that condition.

The setting aside would take effect upon payment.

The petitioner was directed to file replies and supporting documents within three weeks of payment; thereafter, the respondent must give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.