Madras HC Gives Electricals Firm Fresh GST Hearing If It Pays 25% Of Disputed Tax, Says Officers Should Try RPAD After Portal Notices Go Unanswered

In brief

The question

Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the notice was uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was provided and the petitioner claimed it was unaware of the notice.

The court held

The Court set aside the assessment order dated 9 October 2024 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order. The setting aside would take effect from the date of payment.

It also directed

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment; the respondent must then provide 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law.

The petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 9 October 2024 under Section 74 of the GST Act, following a show-cause notice uploaded to the GST portal on 30 July 2024.

The petitioner said it was unaware of the notice and had not received a personal hearing before the assessment order was made. Its subsequent rectification application was rejected on 27 March 2025.

p. 2

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in exchange for an opportunity to present its case. The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to remittal subject to that payment.

pp. 3–5

02Issues

i.Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the notice was uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was provided and the petitioner claimed it was unaware of the notice.

pp. 2–5

ii.Whether remittal should be conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for valid modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other prescribed modes.

pp. 4–5

The Court held that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded through one mode, the officer should consider using another available mode of service—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective.

pp. 4–5

The Court also proceeded on the requirement that the petitioner be given a personal hearing before a fresh decision; it cited no precedent or further statutory provision for that requirement in the order.

pp. 2–5

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 74 Section 169

04Reasoning

Although portal service is a valid mode, the Court considered that the petitioner had not responded to the portal notice and had not received a personal hearing before the proposals in the show-cause notice were confirmed.

pp. 3–5

In those circumstances, the officer should have considered another mode of service under Section 169(1), rather than relying solely on portal upload and proceeding ex parte.

pp. 4–5

Given the petitioner’s offer and the respondent’s consent, the Court ordered remittal subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

p. 5