01Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28 November 2025 for FY 2021–22 and a recovery notice in Form GST DRC-13, seeking, among other relief, the setting aside of the assessment and defreezing of its bank accounts.
pp. 2–5Its GST registration had been cancelled effective 28 October 2024.
pp. 2–5The petitioner said it was unaware of notices uploaded to the GST portal after cancellation, had received no physical notice, and had not been given an effective opportunity to respond or a personal hearing.
pp. 2–5The State submitted that notices had been uploaded to the portal and accepted that no personal hearing had been provided; it sought remittal subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax.
pp. 2–5The petitioner agreed to that condition.
pp. 2–502Issues
i.1. Whether the assessment order was liable to be set aside because the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity to respond and a personal hearing before it was made
pp. 4–6ii.2. Whether the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax
pp. 5–603Law Applied
Section 75(4) of the GST Act requires an opportunity of personal hearing in the circumstances addressed by that provision.
p. 3Section 169(1) provides recognised modes for serving notices and orders; although service by uploading to the GST portal is valid, where the taxpayer does not respond, the authority should consider other prescribed modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due—to make service effective.
pp. 4–5The Court cited no precedent.
Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 75
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that portal upload constituted a valid mode of service, but noted that the notices were issued after cancellation of the petitioner’s registration, the petitioner claimed not to have received physical notice, and the respondent had not provided a personal hearing.
pp. 4–6In the circumstances, the officer should have considered other available modes of service rather than proceeding ex parte after portal notices went unanswered.
pp. 4–6The Court therefore found that the petitioner had not received an effective opportunity to be heard and that the assessment violated natural justice.
pp. 4–6The petitioner’s willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax supported remittal on that condition.
p. 605Holding
The Court set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect from the date of payment.
pp. 6–7The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment.
pp. 6–7The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
pp. 6–7The petition was disposed of without costs.
pp. 6–7Although the petition also sought defreezing of bank accounts, the operative directions do not expressly order the banks to defreeze them.
pp. 1, 6–7Original Court PDF
Tvl Rock and Roll BrosvsDeputy State Tax officer-1
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
