Portal-Only GST Notices: Madras HC Sets Aside Firm’s Ex-Parte Tax Order Subject To 25% Tax Deposit, Says Officers Should Try RPAD

In brief

The question

1. Whether the ex parte assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the notices were uploaded on the GST portal, the petitioner claimed not to have been aware of them, and no personal hearing was provided.

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 12 December 2025 and remanded the matter to the first respondent, with the setting aside to take effect upon the petitioner’s payment of 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order.

It also directed

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment; the respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

Upon production of proof of payment and a copy of the order, the bank must defreeze the petitioner’s account.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an ex parte GST assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 12 December 2025.

pp. 2–3

It contended that notices had been uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, of which it was unaware, and that no personal hearing had been provided.

pp. 2–3

The respondents accepted that no personal hearing had been held.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner undertook to pay 25% of the disputed tax, and its bank account had been attached.

pp. 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the ex parte assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the notices were uploaded on the GST portal, the petitioner claimed not to have been aware of them, and no personal hearing was provided.

pp. 2–5

ii.2. Whether the remand should be made conditional on payment of part of the disputed tax and accompanied by directions concerning the attached bank account.

pp. 3, 5–6

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service by uploading a notice on the GST portal.

pp. 4–5

The Court stated that portal service is sufficient, but where repeated portal notices receive no response, the proper officer should consider other available modes of service under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD), to make service effective rather than merely formal.

pp. 4–5

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing before the adverse order as a procedural defect warranting reconsideration.

pp. 2–3, 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169

04Reasoning

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded on the GST portal, the petitioner claimed it had not become aware of the notice, and the Court found that the assessment had been made without a personal hearing.

pp. 3–5

The Court considered that, after repeated non-response to portal notices, the officer should have explored other statutory modes of service, preferably RPAD.

pp. 3–5

It therefore found a lack of effective effort to serve the notices and accepted remand as appropriate, subject to the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax.

pp. 3–5