Madras HC Remands GST Assessment On 25% Deposit, Says Officers Should Explore Other Notice Modes When Portal Notices Go Unanswered

In brief

The question

Whether the assessment order was liable to be set aside for want of an effective opportunity to respond and a personal hearing.

The court held

The Court set aside the assessment order dated 4 December 2025 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside would take effect from the date of payment.

It also directed

The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment.

The Court further directed that the bank attachment be lifted and the account be defrozen upon production of the order.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 4 December 2025, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act for the tax year 2021–2022.

p. 2

The petitioner’s GST registration had been cancelled with effect from 11 December 2023. The petitioner claimed that the notices were not effectively brought to its attention because they were uploaded on the GST portal after cancellation, and that it received neither a physical copy nor an opportunity to attend a personal hearing.

pp. 2–4

The respondent stated that notices had been uploaded to the portal and acknowledged that no personal hearing was provided; it consented to remittal subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax. The petitioner offered to make that deposit.

p. 3, 5

02Issues

i.Whether the assessment order was liable to be set aside for want of an effective opportunity to respond and a personal hearing.

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax.

p. 5

iii.Whether the attachment over the petitioner’s bank account could continue after the assessment order was set aside.

p. 6

03Law Applied

Section 75(4) of the CGST Act requires an opportunity of personal hearing in the circumstances contemplated by that provision.

p. 2

Section 169(1) provides for legally recognised modes of serving notices and orders; although portal upload is a valid mode of service, the Court stated that, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should explore other available modes, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to achieve effective service.

pp. 4–5

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, requiring a meaningful opportunity to respond before an adverse assessment is made.

pp. 4–5

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73 Section 75

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded only on the GST portal and that the respondent had not provided a personal hearing, which the respondent’s counsel acknowledged.

pp. 3–4

While portal service was legally sufficient, the petitioner’s registration had been cancelled before the notices were issued, and the Court considered that the respondent should have explored other available methods of service, including service by RPAD, particularly in the absence of a response.

pp. 4–5

In these circumstances, the Court found that the petitioner had not received an effective opportunity to be heard and that the assessment order violated natural justice.

pp. 4–5

The petitioner’s offer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax supported remittal on conditions.

p. 5