01Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order and consequential Form GST DRC-07, both dated 3 November 2025, issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017.
pp. 2–3The petitioner said that notices uploaded to the GST portal were not brought to its attention and that it had no opportunity to respond or attend a personal hearing.
pp. 2–3The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.
pp. 2–3The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in exchange for an opportunity to present its case.
pp. 2–3The respondent agreed to remand the matter subject to that payment.
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner claimed not to have received effective notice, and no personal hearing was provided
pp. 4–5ii.2. Whether remand should be conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax
p. 503Law Applied
The Court referred to Section 169(1) of the GST Act, which provides for valid modes of service of notices and orders.
pp. 4–5It observed that portal service is sufficient, but where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other prescribed modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective.
pp. 4–5The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing as a procedural deficiency warranting reconsideration.
pp. 3–5Provisions in the judgment · 2
Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 169
04Reasoning
Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner said it was unaware of the notice, and the respondent admitted that no personal hearing preceded the assessment.
pp. 4–5The Court considered that, in the absence of a response to portal notices, the officer should have explored another mode of service under Section 169(1), rather than proceed ex parte after formal portal service alone.
pp. 4–5Given the lack of a hearing and the petitioner’s willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter on conditions.
pp. 4–505Holding
The Court allowed the petition by setting aside the assessment order and consequential DRC-07, with the setting aside to take effect upon the petitioner’s payment of 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order.
p. 5Any amount already recovered or deposited may be adjusted against that payment.
p. 5The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
p. 5The respondent must then provide 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and decide the matter afresh on the merits and in accordance with law.
p. 5No costs were awarded.
p. 6Original Court PDF
M/s. D.M SILKSvsTHE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER ST
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
