Madras HC Gives Steel Firm Fresh GST Hearing On 25% Deposit, Says Officers Should Try Other Notice Modes When Portal Notices Go Unanswered

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 4 November 2025 and remitted 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.

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 decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.

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

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 4 November 2025, and the consequential DRC-07 summary, made under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for FY 2022–2023.

¶ 1

It submitted that its proprietor’s illness prevented her from attending to the business and monitoring notices uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal; it had therefore not replied to the notices and had received no personal hearing.

¶ 3

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.

¶ 4

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax, and the respondent consented to remittal on that condition.

¶ 5

02Issues

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

¶ 7–10

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

¶ 10

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for service of notices and orders through prescribed modes; the Court accepted that portal upload is a valid mode of service, but held that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other available modes, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to make service effective.

¶ 8–9

The Court also relied on the requirement of a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the matter, and exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the order and remit the dispute.

Provisions in the judgment · 3

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 74Section 169Section 169

04Reasoning

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the Court considered the petitioner’s claim that it was unaware of the notice and noted that no personal hearing had been afforded.

¶ 7–10

It reasoned that, in the absence of any response to portal notices, the officer should have considered another mode of service under Section 169(1), rather than proceeding ex parte after completing what the Court described as empty formalities.

¶ 8–9

The respondent’s acknowledgment that no personal hearing was given, together with the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, supported setting aside the assessment and remitting the matter.

¶ 7–10