Officers must pursue alternative Section 169 service modes when portal notices receive no response.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 3 February 2025.

He contended that notices and communications had been uploaded to the GST portal, including under “View Additional Notices and Orders,” and that he was unaware of them.

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided before the order was passed.

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax to obtain a fresh consideration of the matter.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s submission that the bank account had been attached.

Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the petitioner claimed not to have been aware of portal-uploaded notices and had not received a personal hearing.

Whether the remand and relief concerning the bank-account attachment should be made conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for multiple valid modes of serving notices and other communications.

Although service by uploading a notice to the GST portal may be sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the proper officer should consider other prescribed modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due—to make service effective.

An ex parte order following only formal portal uploads, without adequate efforts to effect service or providing a personal hearing, may warrant remand.

The Court cited no precedent.

The Court accepted that portal service was legally permissible but considered that, in the absence of any response to the notices, the officer should have explored other modes of service under Section 169(1).

The Court found that the order had been made without a personal hearing and that the officer had not taken adequate steps to ensure effective service.

In view of the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the order conditionally and directed fresh adjudication.

The petitioner was directed to file objections and supporting documents within three weeks after payment.

The respondent must then give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and decide the matter afresh on the merits and in accordance with law.

The respondent was also directed to secure release of the bank-account attachment upon proof of payment; if the respondent failed to communicate its lifting, the petitioner could present proof of payment and the Court’s order directly to the bank.

No costs were ordered.