No Personal Hearing: Madras HC Remands Chennai Trader’s GST Assessments for Fresh Hearing, Conditional on 25% Disputed-Tax Deposit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment orders should be set aside and the matters 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 both assessment orders and remanded the matters for fresh consideration, conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax for each order within four weeks from receipt of the order.

It also directed

The setting aside takes effect from the date of 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.

The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged two assessment orders dated 12 December 2025 for the assessment year 2021–2022.

The respondent had uploaded the notices on the GST portal, under “View Additional Notices and Orders”; the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not received the original show-cause notices.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 3–4

The petitioner did not respond, and the respondent passed the assessment orders without a personal hearing—a fact the respondent’s counsel acknowledged.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 3–4

The petitioner sought remand and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in respect of each order.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 3–4

02Issues

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

¶ 3–5 · pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether remand should be conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax for each order.

¶ 10 · pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other modes such as registered post.

¶ 8–9 · p. 4

Although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other available modes—preferably registered post—to make service effective.

¶ 8–9 · p. 4

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, requiring a meaningful opportunity to respond and a personal hearing before an adverse decision.

¶ 8–9 · p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 1

GST Act Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the notices had been uploaded on the GST portal but that the petitioner claimed not to have known of them.

¶ 7–10 · pp. 4–5

In view of the petitioner’s non-response, the Court considered that the officer should have explored other modes of service under Section 169(1), rather than treating portal upload alone as sufficient in the circumstances.

¶ 7–10 · pp. 4–5

The orders were also passed without a personal hearing, which the respondent admitted.

¶ 7–10 · pp. 4–5

Given these circumstances and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax for each order, the Court considered remand appropriate.

¶ 7–10 · pp. 4–5