Madras HC Says GST Officers Should Try Other Service Modes After Portal Notices Go Unanswered; Sets Aside Orders Subject To 25% Deposit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the challenged orders should be set aside and the matters remitted for fresh consideration where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the petitioners said they were unaware of them and no personal hearing was given.

The court held

The three challenged orders were set aside, with the setting aside taking effect upon payment of 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment within four weeks of receipt of the order.

It also directed

Any amount already paid or recovered may be adjusted against that payment.

The petitioners must file their replies and supporting documents within three weeks after payment; the respondent must then issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and decide the matters afresh on their merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petitions were disposed of without an order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioners, legal heirs of J. Amuthavalli and representing Amutha Metal Industries, challenged three orders concerning GSTIN 33ARHPA1055B1ZP: orders dated 8 September 2023, 7 February 2024 and 25 January 2025.

pp. 2–3

They stated that notices and communications had been uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, which they had not seen, and that the orders were made without a personal hearing.

pp. 3–4

The State accepted that no personal hearing had been afforded and sought remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax; the petitioners also offered to make that payment.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the challenged orders should be set aside and the matters remitted for fresh consideration where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the petitioners said they were unaware of them and no personal hearing was given.

pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

pp. 4, 6–7

03Law Applied

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

pp. 5–6

Although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the officer should consider other available modes of service—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due—to make service effective rather than merely formal.

pp. 5–6

The Court also relied on the need to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the matters afresh.

p. 4, 7

No precedents were cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but considered the petitioners’ stated lack of awareness alongside the admitted absence of a personal hearing.

pp. 4–5

It held that, when portal notices drew no response, the officer should have considered other service modes available under Section 169(1), rather than proceeding on the basis of portal uploads alone.

pp. 5–6

Given the petitioners’ willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the orders and remitted the matters subject to that condition.

p. 6

05Holding

The three challenged orders were set aside, with the setting aside taking effect upon payment of 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment within four weeks of receipt of the order.

p. 7

Any amount already paid or recovered may be adjusted against that payment.

p. 7

The writ petitions were disposed of without an order as to costs.

p. 8

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF