Facts
The petitioner challenged the respondent’s assessment order dated 17 March 2026 and consequential demand in Form GST DRC-07.
Source reference: paras. 1, 3–5, 7; pp. 1–4The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not received the original show-cause notice. The assessment was made without a personal hearing.
Source reference: paras. 1, 3–5, 7; pp. 1–4The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax, and the respondent consented to remand on that condition.
Source reference: paras. 1, 3–5, 7; pp. 1–4Issues
Whether the assessment order should be set aside where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided and the petitioner claimed lack of awareness
Source reference: paras. 7–9; pp. 4–5Whether remand for fresh consideration should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax
Source reference: para. 10; p. 5Law Applied
Under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, service through the GST portal is a valid mode of service, as are other prescribed modes.
Source reference: paras. 8–9; p. 4However, where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the officer should consider using another available mode—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to facilitate effective service.
Source reference: paras. 8–9; p. 4An ex parte order should not rest merely on formal compliance where further steps could reasonably improve notice and provide a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Source reference: paras. 8–9; p. 4Reasoning
Although portal service was legally permissible, the petitioner’s non-response called for the officer to consider other modes of service under Section 169(1).
Source reference: paras. 7–10; pp. 4–5The Court found that the absence of a personal hearing, combined with the failure to pursue other available means of bringing the notices to the petitioner’s attention, warranted setting aside the ex parte assessment.
Source reference: paras. 7–10; pp. 4–5Given the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax—and the respondent’s position supporting remand on that basis—the Court imposed that payment as a condition of remand.
Source reference: paras. 7–10; pp. 4–5Holding
The Court set aside the assessment order and Form GST DRC-07, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
Source reference: para. 10(i)–(iii), para. 11; pp. 5–6The respondent must then give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: para. 10(i)–(iii), para. 11; pp. 5–6Any amount already paid or recovered may be adjusted against the 25% payment. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
Source reference: para. 10(i)–(iii), para. 11; pp. 5–6Acts & 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
SRI SARASWATHI ELECTRICAL WORKS,vsThe State Tax Officer ST,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
