Madras HC Reopens GST Assessment On 10% Deposit, Saying Officers Should Try Other Service Modes When Portal Notices Go Unanswered

In brief

The question

1. Whether an assessment order should be set aside and remitted where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the taxpayer did not respond and was not given a personal hearing.

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 22 December 2025 and remanded the matter to the third respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 10% 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 of payment.

The third respondent must then consider the reply, issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, hear the petitioner, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the miscellaneous petition seeking dispensation with production of the original assessment order was ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the third respondent’s order-in-original dated 22 December 2025, which confirmed the proposals in a show-cause notice.

p. 2

The notice and other communications had been uploaded to the GST portal; the petitioner said it had not become aware of them and had not received the original notice.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was provided before the order was made.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax for an opportunity to present its case.

p. 3

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been given and sought a remand subject to that payment.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether an assessment order should be set aside and remitted where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the taxpayer did not respond and was not given a personal hearing.

pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether remand could be made conditional on payment of 10% of the disputed tax.

pp. 3, 5–6

03Law Applied

The Court referred to Section 169(1) of the GST Act, under which the prescribed modes of service include methods other than portal communication; it observed that portal upload is sufficient service, but where a taxpayer does not respond, the officer should explore other prescribed modes, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to ensure effective service.

pp. 4–5

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing, acknowledged by the respondent, as relevant to the decision to set aside and remit the order.

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 1

GST Act (alias, unresolved) Section 169

04Reasoning

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner claimed not to have known of it, and there had been no response to the portal communications.

pp. 4–5

The Court considered that, in those circumstances, the officer should have explored another mode of service under Section 169(1), rather than proceeding ex parte after portal upload alone.

pp. 4–5

The respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been provided, together with the petitioner’s offer to pay 10% of the disputed tax, supported setting aside the order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

p. 3, 5

05Holding

p. 5

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

pp. 5–6

The third respondent must then consider the reply, issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, hear the petitioner, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

pp. 5–6

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the miscellaneous petition seeking dispensation with production of the original assessment order was ordered.

p. 6

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF