Madras HC Tells GST Officers To Try Other Notice Modes After Portal Silence, Remands Assessment If Taxpayer Pays 5% Of Disputed Tax

The petitioner challenged an order-in-original dated 30 December 2025 and a consequential GST garnishee notice dated 12 May 2026.

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

The petitioner also alleged that no personal hearing was provided; the State fairly admitted that no hearing had taken place.

The petitioner stated that it had paid 10% of the disputed tax and offered to pay a further 5% if the matter were remanded.

The petitioner sought to have the assessment order set aside and the matter reconsidered.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal.

The Court observed that portal service is valid, but where the taxpayer does not respond, the officer should explore other available modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD), so that service is effective rather than merely formal.

The Court also relied on the need to afford the taxpayer a personal hearing before making a fresh determination, and on the procedural fairness concern that an ex parte order should not result from ineffective notice efforts.

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the portal, the petitioner said it was unaware of the notice, and the original notice had not been furnished.

The State admitted that no personal hearing preceded the impugned order.

In those circumstances, the Court found that the assessment had been made without a hearing and that the authorities had not sufficiently explored alternative modes of service after receiving no response.

Given the petitioner’s offer to pay an additional 5% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remand appropriate, subject to that payment.

Since the assessment order was being set aside, the related bank attachment could not continue.

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

The banks were directed to defreeze the petitioner’s accounts upon production of the order and proof of payment, and the second respondent was directed to lift the garnishee order upon payment.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.