Madras HC Unfreezes Closed-Business Taxpayer’s Account While Reopening GST Case On 25% Deposit, Urging Other Notice Modes After Portal Silence

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 5 December 2025 in Form GST DRC-07, contending that he had closed his business, applied for cancellation of GST registration, and did not become aware of proceedings whose notices were uploaded on the GST portal.

He claimed that he had no effective opportunity to respond or attend a personal hearing.

The State submitted that notices had been uploaded on the portal, but acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.

The petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount.

Section 169 of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the common portal and other modes such as post.

The Court held that, although portal service is a valid mode, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through a particular mode, the officer should consider other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due—to secure effective service rather than merely fulfil formalities.

Section 75(4) of the CGST Act was invoked by the petitioner in support of the claimed right to a personal hearing; the Court’s decision rested on the absence of a hearing and the resulting breach of natural justice.

No precedent was cited.

The Court accepted that uploading notices on the GST portal is a valid mode of service, but considered the petitioner’s claimed business closure, lack of response to portal notices, and absence of a personal hearing.

In those circumstances, it found that the officer should have considered other service methods available under Section 169 and that the assessment had been made without an effective opportunity for the petitioner to present his case.

Given the petitioner’s undertaking to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remand appropriate.

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

The setting aside takes effect upon payment.

The Court also directed the bank to defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the order.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.