01Facts
The petitioner challenged an order in Form DRC-07 dated 1 December 2025, passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021–22.
pp. 1–3The petitioner said the notices were uploaded on the GST portal, which it had not checked, and that no personal hearing was provided before the assessment order was made.
pp. 1–3The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given and agreed to remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
pp. 1–3The petitioner was also willing to make that payment.
pp. 1–302Issues
i.1. Whether the impugned assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and received no personal hearing.
pp. 3–4ii.2. Whether remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
p. 3, 503Law Applied
Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was the basis for the impugned assessment order.
p. 1Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service by registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD); the Court observed that, although portal service is valid, an officer should consider other available modes where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, to ensure effective service.
pp. 4–5The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, requiring a meaningful opportunity to respond and a personal hearing before an adverse decision.
pp. 3–4Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner claimed not to have known of it, and the respondent admitted that no personal hearing had been provided before the order was passed.
pp. 3–4While portal service was sufficient in law, the lack of any response should have prompted the officer to consider another mode of service under Section 169(1), preferably RPAD, rather than proceed ex parte.
p. 4In view of the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax and the respondent’s consent to remand on that condition, the Court set aside the order and directed fresh consideration.
p. 3, 505Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 1 December 2025, 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 would take effect upon payment.
p. 5The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
p. 5The respondent was directed to consider the reply, give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing, and then pass a reasoned order on the merits and in accordance with law.
p. 5The petition was disposed of without costs.
p. 5Original Court PDF
Veeraragavan VvsDeputy State Tax Officer 1 ST FAC
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
