01Facts
The respondent uploaded notices, including the show-cause notice, to the GST common portal.
pp. 2, paras 4–5The petitioner said it had not viewed the portal, was unaware of the notices, and did not submit a reply; the respondent then passed an order dated 9 December 2025 confirming the proposals without a personal hearing.
pp. 2, paras 4–5 · p. 3 · ¶ 8The petitioner sought to set aside the order and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax.
p. 3 · ¶ 6The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and consented to remand subject to that payment.
p. 3 · ¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the impugned assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and was not given a personal hearing.
pp. 2–4, paras 4–10ii.2. Whether remand could be made conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax and submission of a reply, followed by a personal hearing.
pp. 3, 5, paras 5–6, 1103Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other modes.
pp. 4–5, paras 9–10Although portal upload constitutes sufficient service, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the proper officer should consider other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD)—to achieve effective service; merely completing formalities before making an ex parte order is inadequate.
pp. 4–5, paras 9–10The Court also applied the principles of natural justice in requiring a personal hearing before fresh adjudication.
pp. 4–5, paras 8, 11Provisions in the judgment · 1
Goods and Services Tax Act Section 169
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the portal, but the petitioner claimed it was unaware of the notice and had not received its original.
p. 3 · ¶ 8The Court treated portal service as legally sufficient, yet considered that the lack of response called for the officer to explore other statutory service methods rather than proceed ex parte without a personal hearing.
pp. 4–5, paras 9–10The respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been given, together with the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, supported setting aside the order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration on conditions.
p. 3, 5, paras 6, 1105Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 9 December 2025 and remanded the matter.
p. 5 · ¶ 11The petitioner must pay 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.
p. 5 · ¶ 11The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks thereafter.
p. 5 · ¶ 11On receipt of the reply, the respondent must give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and then decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.
p. 5 · ¶ 11The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
p. 5 · ¶ 12Original Court PDF
HARI AGENCIESvsThe Deputy State Tax Officer 2
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
