Madras HC Remands GST Assessment After Portal Notices Went Unanswered, Making Fresh Hearing Conditional On 25% Tax Deposit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the petitioner received no personal hearing before the order was made.

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 3 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 fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an order dated 3 November 2025 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, together with its summary in Form GST DRC-07.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1, 3

The petitioner said that notices had been uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, of which it was unaware, and that it had received no personal hearing before the adverse order was passed.

pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1, 3

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided, but submitted that the notices had been uploaded to the portal.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

The petitioner undertook to pay 25% of the disputed tax.

p. 2, 5 · ¶ 4, 10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the petitioner received no personal hearing before the order was made.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3, 5, 7–9

ii.2. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises specified modes of serving notices and other documents, including service through the common portal.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–9

The Court observed that portal service is sufficient, but where a taxpayer does not respond to repeated notices sent through that mode, the officer should consider other modes prescribed by Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to make service effective.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–9

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing in the circumstances of this case as a ground to set aside the order and remit the matter for reconsideration.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 5, 7, 10

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 169

04Reasoning

Although uploading notices to the GST portal constitutes a valid mode of service, the petitioner’s failure to respond should have prompted the officer to consider other available methods of service rather than proceed on portal notices alone.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 5, 7–10

The Court found that the petitioner had not been afforded a personal hearing, and the respondent acknowledged that omission.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 5, 7–10

In light of these circumstances, and the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remand appropriate, subject to that payment.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 5, 7–10