Madras HC Sets Aside GST Order After No Personal Hearing, Urges RPAD For Unanswered Portal Notices, Conditions Fresh Hearing On 25% Disputed-Tax Payment

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was provided and the petitioner claimed it had not become aware of the notices.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 11 November 2025 and remanding the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax, less amounts already paid, within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside would take effect upon payment.

It also directed

The petitioner was directed to file its reply and documents within three weeks of payment, after which the respondent must give 14 clear days’ notice of a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

The bank was directed to defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the order and proof of payment.

No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 11 November 2025, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, for FY 2021–2022.

p. 1

The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it had not become aware of them and therefore had not replied.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–5

The petitioner alleged that the assessment order was passed without a personal hearing.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–5

The respondent confirmed that the notices were uploaded to the portal and admitted that no personal hearing had been provided before the order was passed.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax, after crediting amounts already paid, in exchange for a remand.

p. 3, 5 · ¶ 5, 11

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was provided and the petitioner claimed it had not become aware of the notices.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–10

ii.2. Whether remand should be made conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax, after deducting amounts already paid, and what consequential relief should follow.

p. 5 · ¶ 11 · p. 6 · ¶ 11(iv)

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service by uploading a notice to the GST portal; the Court accepted that portal service is sufficient.

p. 4 · ¶ 9

However, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the issuing officer should consider other available modes under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to secure effective service rather than merely complete a formality.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10

The Court also applied the principle that an affected taxpayer should receive an effective opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse assessment order is made.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8, 11

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73 Section 169

04Reasoning

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the Court considered the absence of any response and the lack of a personal hearing significant.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–10

It held that the officer should have explored other statutory modes of service, particularly after repeated notices went unanswered; relying only on portal uploads in those circumstances risked making service an empty formality and contributing to further litigation.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–10

In light of the respondent’s admission that no personal hearing was given and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter on that payment condition.

p. 5 · ¶ 11