No Personal Hearing Before Assessment: Madras HC Sets Aside Food Firm’s GST Order, Subject To 25% Tax Deposit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the petitioner claimed not to have received effective notice and was not afforded a personal hearing.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside would take effect upon payment, and amounts already recovered or deposited could be adjusted against that payment.

It also directed

The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment. The respondent was directed to issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and thereafter pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

The bank-account attachment was to be lifted, and the bank directed to defreeze the account upon proof of payment and notify the respondent.

No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 5 December 2025 under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, for FY 2021–22.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1, 3

It contended that notices uploaded to the GST portal were not brought to its attention and that the assessment was made without a personal hearing. The respondents maintained that notices had been uploaded and sent by RPAD, but acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given. The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax as a condition of remand.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–5

The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded on the portal and that the assessment confirmed its proposals.

p. 4 · ¶ 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the petitioner claimed not to have received effective notice and was not afforded a personal hearing.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3–7

ii.2. Whether remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax and accompanied by directions concerning a fresh hearing and the bank-account attachment.

pp. 3, 5–6 · ¶ 5, 10

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the CGST/TNGST Act provides for valid modes of service of notices and orders; the Court stated that, when there is no response to portal service, the officer should explore other prescribed modes, preferably RPAD, to secure effective service.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–9

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, including affording the taxpayer a personal hearing before making an adverse assessment, and exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the order and remit the matter.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 1, 7–10

The assessment was made under Section 73 of the Act.

p. 1 · pp. 2–5 · ¶ 1, 7–10

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

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

04Reasoning

Although portal upload was a legally recognised mode of service, the Court considered that the absence of any response should have prompted the assessing officer to explore other modes under Section 169, rather than proceed on the basis of formal portal service alone.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 7–10

The respondents also admitted that no personal hearing had been afforded. In those circumstances, and in light of the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the assessment and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 7–10