01Facts
The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order dated 27 December 2025 for FY 2021–22, made in Form GST DRC-07, and consequential recovery proceedings, including attachment of its bank account.
pp. 1–3The petitioner said the notices had been uploaded to the GST portal and it was unaware of them; it had therefore not replied, and no personal hearing was provided.
pp. 1–3The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been given.
pp. 1–3The petitioner offered to pay 15% of the disputed tax as a condition for remand.
pp. 1–3The Court also noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded on the portal and that the petitioner claimed it had not received the original notice.
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner claimed lack of awareness, and no personal hearing was provided.
pp. 3–4ii.2. Whether the bank-account attachment could remain in force after the assessment order was set aside.
p. 503Law Applied
The Court referred to Section 169(1) of the GST Act, under which service through the prescribed modes is valid; portal service is sufficient, but where a taxpayer does not respond, the officer should consider other available modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to ensure effective notice.
pp. 4–5The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing as relevant to the validity of the ex parte assessment and exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the order and remit the matter on conditions.
pp. 2–5Provisions in the judgment · 1
Goods and Services Tax Act Section 169
04Reasoning
Although portal service was legally sufficient, the petitioner’s failure to respond to the notices should have prompted the officer to consider other modes of service under Section 169(1), rather than proceed on the basis of portal uploads alone.
pp. 3–5In addition, the respondent admitted that no personal hearing had been provided.
pp. 3–5In these circumstances, the Court found that the assessment had been made without an adequate opportunity to be heard and ordered a conditional remand.
pp. 3–5Because the assessment order was being set aside, the Court held that the consequential bank attachment could not continue.
pp. 3–505Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 27 December 2025 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 15% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.
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 pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
pp. 5–6The concerned bank must de-freeze the petitioner’s account upon production of proof of payment and a copy of the order.
pp. 5–6The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
pp. 5–6Original Court PDF
ORCHARD FOODS ,RE.P BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.PALANIAPPvsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
