Madras HC Sets Aside Trader’s Ex-Parte GST Order For Fresh Hearing, Effective Only After 50% Disputed-Tax Payment

The petitioner challenged a GST demand order dated 4 December 2023.

The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it had not seen them and had not received the show-cause notice directly.

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.

The petitioner offered to pay 50% of the disputed tax and sought an opportunity to present its case.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for multiple valid modes of service, including service through the portal and other prescribed modes.

The Court observed that where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the officer should explore other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to achieve effective service, rather than merely completing formalities.

The Court also required a personal hearing before fresh orders were made on remand.

Although portal service is sufficient under the Act, the petitioner’s failure to respond to portal notices called for the officer to consider other available service modes.

The absence of a personal hearing—acknowledged by the respondent—meant the impugned order had been made without that opportunity.

In light of these circumstances and the petitioner’s offer to pay 50% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter subject to payment.

The petitioner must pay 50% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.

The respondent must then give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

No costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.