Portal-Only GST Notices Went Unanswered: Madras HC Sets Aside Trader’s Orders Subject to 25% Tax Deposit, Says Officers Should Try Other Service Modes

In brief

The question

1. Whether assessment orders made after notices were uploaded to the GST portal, without a personal hearing, should be set aside for reconsideration.

The court held

The Court disposed of the petitions by setting aside the three assessment orders and their DRC-07 summaries, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment within four weeks of receiving the order; any amount already recovered or deposited could be adjusted against that payment.

It also directed

The setting aside would take effect from the date of payment.

The petitioner was then to file its replies and supporting documents within three weeks of payment, after which the respondent was to give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged three GST assessment orders dated 4 December 2025 and 27 April 2026, together with their respective summaries in Form GST DRC-07.

p. 2 · ¶ 1

It submitted that the notices had been uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, of which it was unaware, and that the orders were made without a personal hearing.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

The respondent stated that the notices had been uploaded to the portal and acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

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

p. 4 · ¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether assessment orders made after notices were uploaded to the GST portal, without a personal hearing, should be set aside for reconsideration.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3, 5, 7

ii.2. Whether remand should be made conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax for each assessment.

pp. 4, 6–7 · ¶ 4, 10

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other modes such as registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD).

p. 5 · ¶ 8–9

The Court observed that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other available modes of service to make notice effective; merely completing formalities by portal upload may not serve that purpose.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8–9

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, holding that the petitioner should have an opportunity to be heard before fresh orders were made.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7, 10

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that portal upload constituted a recognised mode of service, but considered that the absence of any response called for the officer to explore other modes available under Section 169(1), preferably RPAD, rather than proceed to an ex parte assessment without a personal hearing.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7–9

The respondent’s acknowledgment that no personal hearing had been provided reinforced the need for reconsideration.

Given the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the orders and remitted the matters on that condition.

pp. 4, 6–7 · ¶ 4–5, 10