Portal Notices Go Unanswered: Madras HC Says GST Officers Should Try Other Service Modes, Reopening Company’s Assessment Subject To Net 25% Disputed-Tax Deposit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the ex parte assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided

The court held

The Court set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter to the respondent.

It also directed

The petitioner must pay 25% of the disputed tax, less amounts already paid, within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.

The petitioner must then file its objections and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.

The respondent must issue 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and thereafter decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an ex parte assessment order dated 29 December 2023.

p. 2

Notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it had not become aware of them and therefore did not submit a reply.

p. 2

The petitioner also complained that it had not received a personal hearing.

p. 2

It offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax, after deducting amounts already paid.

pp. 2–3

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

pp. 2–3

The Court considered whether the order should be set aside and the matter remitted.

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the ex parte assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether remittal should be conditioned on payment of 25% of the disputed tax, less amounts already paid

p. 3, 5

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises multiple valid modes of service.

pp. 4–5

Although service by uploading a notice to the GST portal is sufficient, where the taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the officer should consider other modes prescribed by Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to ensure effective service.

pp. 4–5

The Court also applied the principle that an assessment should not be finalised without a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing.

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 1

GST Act Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that portal service was legally sufficient but held that repeated non-response should have prompted the officer to explore another prescribed mode of service, rather than proceed through what the Court described as empty formalities.

pp. 4–5

The respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been afforded supported setting aside the assessment and remitting the matter.

p. 3, 5

The petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, after crediting prior payments, was accepted as the condition for that relief.

p. 3, 5

05Holding

The Court set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter to the respondent.

p. 5

The petitioner must pay 25% of the disputed tax, less amounts already paid, within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.

p. 5

The petitioner must then file its objections and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.

p. 5

The respondent must issue 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and thereafter decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.

p. 5

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

p. 6

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF