Madras HC Gives Fabric Firm Fresh GST Hearing After Portal Notices Went Unanswered, Conditional On 25% Disputed-Tax Deposit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was provided

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 28 November 2025 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order; the setting aside takes 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 fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 28 November 2025 for the financial year 2019–20.

p. 1

It said notices were uploaded to the GST portal, which it had not viewed, and that it therefore did not respond; it also alleged that the assessment was made without a personal hearing.

pp. 1–3

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax for an opportunity to present its case.

pp. 1–3

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and consented to remand subject to that payment.

pp. 1–3

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax and subject to directions for the petitioner’s reply and a fresh hearing

p. 3, 5

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including uploading notices to the GST portal.

pp. 4–5

The Court held that where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the officer should explore other available modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to achieve effective service rather than merely formal compliance.

pp. 4–5

The Court also proceeded on the basis that the petitioner should receive a personal hearing before a fresh assessment decision.

pp. 2–5

No judicial precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Goods and Services Tax Act Section 169

04Reasoning

Although portal service was a valid mode, the Court considered that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to explore other modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceed ex parte after formal portal service alone.

pp. 4–5

The respondent also acknowledged that no personal hearing had been afforded.

p. 3, 5

In those circumstances, and given the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found remand appropriate, subject to payment and a fresh opportunity to respond and be heard.

p. 3, 5