Madras HC Remands Municipality’s GST Cases After No Hearing, Says Officers Should Try Other Notice Modes When Portal Notices Go Unanswered

Idappadi Municipality challenged three orders dated 6 February 2025 under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017, concerning FY 2023–24, FY 2022–23 and FY 2020–21.

The Municipality said it had not viewed notices uploaded to the GST portal and therefore did not respond; it also alleged that no personal hearing preceded the orders.

It stated that it had paid 50% of the disputed tax in two petitions and the entire disputed tax in the third.

The State Tax Officer acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and consented to remand.

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

The Court held that where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the issuing officer should explore other available modes of service—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective rather than merely formal.

The Court also required a personal hearing before fresh orders were passed.

Although portal upload was a valid mode of service, the absence of any response called for the officer to consider other statutory modes to ensure effective notice.

The Court also noted that the impugned orders had been made without a personal hearing, a fact accepted by the respondent.

In light of these circumstances and the payments reported by the Municipality, the Court considered remand appropriate.

The Municipality was directed to file its replies and supporting documents within three weeks of receiving the order.

Upon receipt, the respondent must give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and then decide the matters on their merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.