GST Portal Notices Went Unanswered, No Personal Hearing: Madras HC Sets Aside Tax Order On 10% Deposit, Says Officers Should Try Other Service Modes

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and was not given a personal hearing

The court held

The Court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside would take effect upon payment.

It also directed

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

The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 23 February 2026.

Notices, including the show-cause notice, had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not received the original notice.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–6

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–6

The petitioner offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax and sought a fresh opportunity to present its case.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–6

The respondent consented to remand on that condition.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and was not given a personal hearing

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6, 8

ii.2. Whether, upon remand, the matter should be reconsidered subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax

p. 5 · ¶ 11

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises multiple valid modes of service. Although service by uploading a notice to the GST portal is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to repeated portal notices, the officer should consider other available modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to make service effective.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10

The Court also applied the requirement of a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an adverse assessment is made; no precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1

GST Act Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the show-cause notice was uploaded to the portal, but the petitioner claimed not to have been aware of it, and the respondent conceded that no personal hearing had been afforded.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6, 8

While portal service was legally valid, the Court considered that continued non-response should have prompted the officer to explore another mode under Section 169(1), rather than proceed ex parte after merely completing formalities.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10

Given the petitioner’s offer to pay 10% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remand appropriate.

p. 5 · ¶ 11