Madras HC Calls For Other GST Notice Modes After Portal Silence, Remands Cuddalore Trader’s Case For Fresh Hearing On 10% Deposit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was afforded and the taxpayer did not respond

The court held

The Court set aside the assessment order dated 6 May 2026 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.

It also directed

The petitioner must file objections 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.

The bank account attachment is to be lifted upon production of the order and proof of payment.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 6 May 2026 concerning GST for April 2021 to March 2024.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner stated that notices were uploaded to the GST portal but were not seen, and that the assessment was made without a personal hearing.

pp. 2–3

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and consented to remand subject to payment of 10% of the disputed tax.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner also stated willingness to make that payment

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was afforded and the taxpayer did not respond

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether, in the absence of a response to portal notices, the officer should explore other modes of service available under Section 169 of the GST Act

p. 4

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service by uploading notices to the GST portal and other modes such as registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD).

pp. 4–5

The Court held that although portal uploading constitutes sufficient service, where a taxpayer does not respond, the officer should consider other available modes to make service effective.

pp. 4–5

An ex parte order following only formal portal service, without reasonable efforts to use other modes, may result in an ineffective opportunity and further litigation.

pp. 4–5

The Court also relied on the requirement to afford a personal hearing before deciding the matter in the circumstances of this case.

pp. 2–4

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, but considered the petitioner’s lack of awareness, the absence of a personal hearing, and the respondent’s admission that no hearing had been afforded.

pp. 3–5

It reasoned that, when portal notices receive no response, the officer should explore other modes under Section 169(1), preferably RPAD, rather than proceed ex parte after merely completing formalities.

pp. 3–5

In light of these circumstances and the petitioner’s willingness to pay 10% of the disputed tax, the Court found remand appropriate

pp. 3–5