Madras HC Remands Healthcare Firm’s GST Case After No Hearing, Requiring 25% Deposit And Urging Other Notice Modes When Portal Notices Go Unanswered

In brief

The question

Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided.

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 19 February 2024 and remanded the matter to the respondent, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the 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 issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 19 February 2024 and consequential Form DRC-07 for tax period 2019–20.

p. 2

It said the notices were uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, of which it was unaware, and that it had no opportunity to attend a personal hearing.

pp. 2–3

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner undertook to pay 25% of the disputed tax, and the respondent consented to remand on that condition.

pp. 2–3

The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded on the portal and that the assessment confirmed its proposals without a personal hearing.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided.

pp. 3–4

ii.Whether remand should be conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

pp. 2–3, 5

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other modes such as registered post.

pp. 4–5

The Court held that where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the officer should consider other available modes of service—preferably registered post—to make service effective, rather than merely completing formalities.

pp. 4–5

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing before the adverse order as a ground supporting remand.

p. 3, 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Goods and Services Tax Act Section 169

04Reasoning

Although portal service was a valid mode, the Court considered that the petitioner’s lack of response should have prompted the officer to explore another mode under Section 169(1), particularly given that no personal hearing was provided before the assessment order was made.

pp. 3–5

The Court accepted the parties’ position that the matter could be reconsidered on remand, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

p. 5