01Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 8 May 2026 and its DRC-07 summary, contending that notices had been uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal and that it was unaware of them.
pp. 1–3The petitioner said it had not been given a personal hearing and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax to secure a fresh hearing.
pp. 1–3The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to a remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
pp. 1–3The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the portal, but found that the assessment order had confirmed the proposals without a personal hearing.
pp. 3–402Issues
i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted when the notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided.
pp. 3–4ii.2. Whether, when a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded on the portal, the officer should pursue other modes of service under Section 169(1) of the GST Act.
pp. 3–403Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises multiple modes of serving notices and orders.
pp. 3–4The Court held that although service by portal upload is sufficient, an officer should consider other available statutory modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—when the taxpayer does not respond to portal notices.
pp. 3–4Effective service and a meaningful opportunity to be heard are required; merely completing formalities before passing an ex parte order may cause avoidable litigation.
pp. 3–4Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, but treated the petitioner’s asserted lack of awareness, the absence of a personal hearing, and the respondent’s admission that no hearing had been provided as material circumstances warranting reconsideration.
pp. 2–4It reasoned that, where portal notices receive no response, the officer should explore other modes permitted by Section 169(1), rather than proceed solely on the basis of portal upload.
p. 4The petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax supported a conditional remand.
pp. 3–405Holding
The Court set aside the assessment order dated 8 May 2026 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect from the date of payment.
p. 5The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment.
p. 5The respondent must then consider the reply, give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, hear the petitioner, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
p. 5The writ petition was disposed of without costs; WMP No. 50939 of 2026 was ordered and WMP No. 50942 of 2026 was closed.
p. 5Original Court PDF
JK ConstructionvsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
