Officers must explore alternative statutory service modes before passing ex parte GST orders.

The petitioner challenged two orders in Form DRC-07, dated 29 April 2026 and 14 May 2026, concerning financial years 2022–23 and 2023–24.

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

The petitioner alleged that the assessments were made without a personal hearing and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in each petition.

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to remittal subject to that payment.

The petitions were brought under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the impugned assessment orders should be set aside where notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided before the orders were passed

2. Whether remittal for fresh consideration should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax in each petition

Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, governs the assessment proceedings challenged here

Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for modes of service of notices and other communications; the Court recognised portal service as sufficient, but stated that, where there is no response to portal notices, the officer should explore other prescribed modes, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to achieve effective service

The Court also applied the principle of natural justice that the taxpayer should receive an opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse order is made.

Although uploading notices on the GST portal was a valid mode of service, the petitioner’s lack of response should have prompted the officer to consider other available modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceed to ex parte orders.

The respondent also admitted that no personal hearing had been given. In these circumstances, and given the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax in each case, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the orders and remit the matters for fresh consideration on stated conditions

The petitioner must then file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment. On receipt of the reply, the respondent must give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, hear the petitioner, 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.