01Facts
The petitioner challenged a DRC-07 order dated 13 May 2026, contending that notices uploaded to the GST portal had not come to its attention and that the order was passed without a personal hearing.
pp. 2–3, 5The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in return for an opportunity to present its case.
pp. 2–3, 5The State fairly admitted that no personal hearing had been provided and supported remand subject to that payment.
pp. 2–3, 5The petition also sought release of a bank attachment of ₹10,42,312.
pp. 2–3, 502Issues
i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the petitioner had not responded to portal notices and had not been given a personal hearing.
pp. 2–4ii.2. Whether the bank attachment could continue after the impugned order was set aside.
p. 503Law Applied
The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution in considering the challenge to the assessment order and the consequential bank attachment.
pp. 4–5It recognised that service by uploading a notice to the GST portal is a valid mode of service, but held that Section 169 of the GST Act provides other valid modes which the tax officer should explore when there is no response to portal notices, preferably service by registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to achieve effective rather than merely formal service.
pp. 4–5Provisions in the judgment · 1
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169
04Reasoning
Although portal upload constituted valid service, the petitioner’s lack of response should have prompted the officer to consider other modes of service under Section 169.
pp. 3–5The Court also noted that no personal hearing had been afforded before the order confirmed the show-cause proposals.
pp. 3–5In view of these circumstances, and the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found remand appropriate.
pp. 3–5Because the attachment was consequential to the impugned order, it could not continue once that order was set aside, subject to the conditions imposed.
pp. 3–505Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 13 May 2026 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order.
pp. 5–6The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
pp. 5–6The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.
pp. 5–6The bank must defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the Court’s order and proof of payment.
pp. 5–6The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
pp. 5–6Original Court PDF
A K ENTERPRISESvsTHE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER II
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
