Portal-Only GST Notices, No Personal Hearing: Madras HC Sets Aside Trader’s Tax Order for Fresh Hearing, Subject to 25% Deposit

In brief

The question

Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded on the GST portal, the petitioner claimed lack of awareness, and no personal hearing was provided

The court held

The Court set aside the order dated 30 December 2023 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order; the setting aside would take effect upon payment.

It also directed

Any amount already recovered or deposited could be adjusted against that payment.

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

Thereafter, the respondent must give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected application was allowed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order dated 30 December 2023, contending that notices had been uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal and that it was unaware of them.

pp. 2–3

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

pp. 2–3

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in return for an opportunity to present its case.

pp. 2–3

The Court considered whether to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded on the GST portal, the petitioner claimed lack of awareness, and no personal hearing was provided

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether remand for fresh consideration could be made conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax

p. 5

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises multiple valid modes of service, including service through the common portal and other prescribed modes.

pp. 4–5

Although portal service is sufficient, where the taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded there, the officer should consider other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to achieve effective service.

pp. 4–5

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice in treating the absence of a personal hearing as material to the ex parte assessment.

pp. 4–5

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1

GST Act, 2017 Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the notices had been uploaded on the GST portal, but the petitioner claimed not to have known of them and the respondent admitted that no personal hearing had been given.

pp. 3–4

It held that, despite portal service being legally sufficient, the officer should have explored another mode of service when the petitioner did not respond, rather than proceeding through what the Court characterised as empty formalities.

p. 4

In light of the lack of a personal hearing and the petitioner’s willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court ordered remand subject to that payment.

p. 5