Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 29 December 2025 and a summary order dated 30 December 2025 for the 2021–22 assessment year.
Source reference: p. 2The notices had been uploaded to the GST common portal, but the petitioner’s authorised representative did not view them, and the petitioner therefore did not respond.
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner alleged that no personal hearing was provided and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in order to have the matter reconsidered.
Source reference: pp. 2–3The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been afforded and agreed to remittal subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the assessment order and summary order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was provided.
Source reference: pp. 2–42. Whether remittal for fresh consideration should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
Source reference: pp. 3, 5Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other available modes.
Source reference: p. 4Although portal upload is a valid mode of service, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the officer should explore other prescribed modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective.
Source reference: p. 4The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the orders and remit the matter on conditions.
Source reference: pp. 1, 5Reasoning
The Court accepted that portal upload constitutes valid service, but considered that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to explore other modes permitted by Section 169(1), rather than proceed ex parte without a personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 4In light of the respondent’s acknowledgment that no personal hearing had been provided and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the orders and remit the matter subject to that payment.
Source reference: pp. 3, 5Holding
The Court set aside the assessment order dated 29 December 2025 and the summary order dated 30 December 2025, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; setting aside would take effect upon payment.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment. The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5The petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 6Acts & Sections Cited
3 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 20173
Original Court PDF
M/s.Akashdurai Super MarketvsThe State Tax Officer (ST) Kallakurichi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
