Madras HC Sets Aside GST Assessment Over Unanswered Portal Notices, Orders Bank Freeze Lifted And Fresh Hearing After 25% Deposit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration where the petitioner claimed it was unaware of portal-uploaded notices and no personal hearing had been provided.

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 27 April 2026 and remanded the matter, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax—after deducting the amount already recovered—within four weeks of receiving the order.

It also directed

The setting aside would take effect from the date of payment.

The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment; the respondent was then to give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and decide the matter afresh on its merits and in accordance with law.

The Court further directed the bank to de-freeze the petitioner’s account immediately upon production of the order.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an order dated 27 April 2026, contending that notices had been uploaded under the GST portal’s “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab and it had not become aware of them.

p. 2 · pp. 3–4

The petitioner said the order was made without a personal hearing and that ₹20,75,386 had already been recovered from its electronic cash ledger (ECL).

p. 2 · pp. 3–4

The respondents accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to a remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax, after crediting the sum already recovered.

p. 3

The petitioner sought to set aside the order and lift the bank attachment.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration where the petitioner claimed it was unaware of portal-uploaded notices and no personal hearing had been provided.

pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether the bank attachment should be lifted upon the impugned order being set aside.

p. 6

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognizes the prescribed modes of service, including service by uploading notices to the GST portal.

p. 4

However, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded through a particular mode, the proper officer should consider using other modes available under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to effect service meaningfully and avoid merely formal or ineffective notice.

pp. 4–5

The Court also proceeded on the accepted position that the petitioner had not been given a personal hearing before the impugned order was passed.

pp. 3–4

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that portal upload is a valid mode of service, but considered that the petitioner’s lack of response should have prompted the officer to explore other statutory service methods, rather than proceed ex parte on the basis of portal notices alone.

pp. 4–5

It also noted the admitted absence of a personal hearing and the petitioner’s willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax after accounting for the amount already recovered from the ECL.

p. 3, 5

In those circumstances, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the specified payment and opportunity to respond and be heard.

pp. 5–6