Madras HC Says Officers Should Try Other Service Modes When GST Portal Notices Go Unanswered, Reopens Assessment If Trader Pays 25% Of Disputed Tax

In brief

The question

Whether the impugned assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and received no personal hearing.

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 18 June 2025 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receipt of the order; the setting aside takes effect from the date of payment.

It also directed

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of 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; the miscellaneous petitions were dealt with as stated in the order.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the second respondent’s GST order dated 18 June 2025, which confirmed the proposals in a show-cause notice.

p. 2

The notices had been uploaded to the GST common portal, but the petitioner said it had not seen them and had not received the original show-cause notice; it therefore failed to respond.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner alleged that the assessment order was made without a personal hearing and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax to secure a fresh consideration.

pp. 2–3

The respondents acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to remittal subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the impugned assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and received no personal hearing.

pp. 3–4

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

p. 3, 5

03Law Applied

The Court referred to Section 169(1) of the GST Act, which provides for valid modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other prescribed modes.

p. 4

It held that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should explore other available modes of service—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to achieve effective service rather than merely fulfil a formality.

pp. 4–5

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Goods and Services Tax Act Section 169Section 169

04Reasoning

Although portal service was a valid mode, the Court considered that the petitioner claimed not to have seen the notice and that the officer had not explored other available means of service despite the absence of a response.

pp. 3–4

The absence of a personal hearing was also undisputed by the respondents.

p. 3

In these circumstances, the Court found inadequate efforts to serve the notices effectively and accepted remittal subject to the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax.

pp. 4–5