Portal-only GST notice without effective service and personal hearing violates natural justice.

The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 9 December 2025, contending that the show-cause notice dated 23 June 2025, the personal-hearing notice and the impugned order had been uploaded to the GST portal but not physically served.

The petitioner said it had not accessed the portal and therefore had no opportunity to respond or attend a hearing.

The petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and sought an opportunity to file objections and be heard. The respondents did not oppose remand on that condition.

The Court considered the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether passing the assessment order without an effective opportunity to respond and a personal hearing, in circumstances where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal but allegedly not otherwise served, violated the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person affected by an assessment be given a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard.

It also considered that the statute provided alternative modes of serving notice and observed that, where no response was received, the authority should adopt an effective mode of service rather than repeatedly uploading notices and reminders to the common portal.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision or precedent.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s contention that portal-only publication had not brought the show-cause notice to its attention and that no effective personal hearing had been afforded.

Given the availability of alternative statutory modes of service, the Court considered repeated portal uploads insufficient in the circumstances, particularly when the petitioner had filed no response. It therefore found that the assessment had been made without a proper opportunity to establish the petitioner’s case, warranting reconsideration on the merits.

The petitioner’s undertaking to deposit 25% of the disputed tax provided the condition for setting aside the order and remanding the matter.

The petitioner was permitted to file objections with supporting documents within two weeks thereafter; the second respondent was directed to consider them, give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing, and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

Upon proof of the deposit, the concerned bank was directed to defreeze the petitioner’s bank account and inform the second respondent.

The writ petition was disposed of without an order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.