Madras HC Makes Fresh GST Hearing Conditional On 25% Of Disputed Tax, Says Officials Should Try RPAD When Portal Notices Go Unanswered

The petitioner challenged the second respondent’s assessment order dated 10 April 2026, contending that notices and communications had been uploaded under the GST portal’s “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab, of which it was unaware, and that no personal hearing had been afforded before the order was made.

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax, and the respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to remand subject to that payment.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises multiple valid modes of serving notices and orders; portal service is sufficient, but where there is no response to portal notices, the officer should consider other prescribed modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to ensure effective notice.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, holding that an ex parte assessment made without an effective opportunity to be heard may warrant remand.

Although the Court accepted that uploading a notice on the GST portal is a valid mode of service, the petitioner’s non-response called for the officer to consider other available modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceed on portal service alone.

The assessment confirmed the show-cause proposals without a personal hearing, and the respondent acknowledged that no such hearing had been provided.

In these circumstances, and given the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found remand appropriate.

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment. The respondent must then consider the reply, give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, hear the petitioner, and pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.