Madras HC Tells GST Officers To Explore Other Service Modes When Portal Notices Go Unanswered, Giving Trader Fresh Hearing On 25% Deposit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was provided.

The court held

The Court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the respondent, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside would take effect upon payment.

It also directed

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

The respondent must then give 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.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 15 October 2025, passed under Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, and the consequential summary in Form GST DRC-07.

pp. 1-3

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

pp. 1-3

The petitioner also alleged that no personal hearing was provided.

pp. 1-3

It offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in exchange for an opportunity to present its case.

pp. 1-3

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and sought remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was provided.

pp. 3-4

ii.2. Whether remand could be made conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

p. 3, 5

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for valid modes of serving notices and other communications; portal service is sufficient, but other prescribed modes may also be used.

pp. 4-5

The Court stated that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should explore other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to ensure effective service, rather than merely fulfilling formalities.

pp. 4-5

The assessment was made under Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017.

p. 1

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

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 74 Section 169

04Reasoning

Although portal upload constituted sufficient service, the petitioner’s lack of response should have prompted the respondent to consider other modes of service under Section 169(1), particularly given the absence of a personal hearing before the assessment order was passed.

pp. 3-5

The Court considered the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax and the respondent’s consent to remand on that condition.

p. 5

It therefore set aside the order subject to payment, while directing a fresh consideration that included a personal hearing.

p. 5