Portal-Only GST Notices Left Electricals Firm Unheard; Madras HC Reopens Tax Case, Orders Bank Freeze Lifted On 25% Deposit

In brief

The question

Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded on the GST portal but the petitioner received no personal hearing before an ex parte order was made.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 9 September 2025, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order.

It also directed

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 decide the matter afresh on the merits and in accordance with law.

The bank attachment was directed to be lifted, and the bank must defreeze the account upon production of proof of payment and a copy of the order.

No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order dated 9 September 2025, issued in Form GST DRC-07 for FY 2021–22.

p. 1

The petitioner stated that notices were uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal and that it was unaware of them; it consequently did not reply.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 3

The petitioner alleged that the order was made without a personal hearing and sought to have the order set aside and its bank-account attachment lifted.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 3

The Revenue accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to remittal subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax. The petitioner undertook to make that payment.

p. 3 · ¶ 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded on the GST portal but the petitioner received no personal hearing before an ex parte order was made.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3, 7–9

ii.Whether the matter should be remitted subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax, and whether the related bank-account attachment should be lifted.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

Under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, service through the prescribed modes—including portal-based service—is valid; however, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other prescribed modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD), to ensure effective notice.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–9

The Court also applied the requirement of a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the assessment, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the order and remit the matter.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 1, 7, 10

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Goods and Services Tax Act Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that portal upload constituted a valid mode of service, but held that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to consider other modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceed ex parte without a personal hearing.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 5, 7–10

The Revenue acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given, and both sides accepted remittal subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 5, 7–10

The Court therefore set aside the assessment conditionally and directed a fresh determination after the petitioner filed its objections and received notice of a personal hearing.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

05Holding

The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 9 September 2025, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order.

p. 5 · ¶ 10(i)–(iii)

The bank attachment was directed to be lifted, and the bank must defreeze the account upon production of proof of payment and a copy of the order.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 10(iv)

No costs were ordered.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF