Madras HC Remands GST Case For Fresh Hearing If Firm Pays 10% Of Disputed Tax, Calls For Registered Post After Portal Notices Go Unanswered

In brief

The question

Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the petitioner claimed not to have seen them and no personal hearing was provided

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the assessment order dated 18 June 2024 and remanding the matter to the respondent.

It also directed

The petitioner must pay 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.

The petitioner must then file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.

The respondent must issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and thereafter pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the respondent’s assessment order dated 18 June 2024, made after notices were uploaded to the GST common portal.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner said it had not seen the notices, had not filed a reply, and was not given a personal hearing.

pp. 2–3

It offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax to obtain a fresh consideration of the matter.

pp. 2–3

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and consented to remand subject to payment of 10% of the disputed tax.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the petitioner claimed not to have seen them and no personal hearing was provided

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether remand for fresh consideration could be made conditional on the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax

p. 3, 5

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for valid modes of serving notices and other communications.

pp. 4–5

While service by uploading a notice to the GST portal is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond, the issuing officer should consider other available statutory modes of service—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to ensure effective notice.

pp. 4–5

The Court also proceeded on the requirement that the petitioner receive a personal hearing before the matter was reconsidered and decided.

p. 3, 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that portal service was legally sufficient, but considered that the petitioner’s non-response should have prompted the officer to explore other modes of service under Section 169(1), rather than proceed solely on the portal notices.

pp. 4–5

The Court also noted the respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been provided.

pp. 3–5

In light of those circumstances, and the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 10% of the disputed tax, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

pp. 3–5