Madras High Court
Tax LawAdministrative and Public Law

Portal silence requires tax officers to explore alternative Section 169 service before ex parte orders.

M/s.Akashdurai Super Market vs The State Tax Officer (ST) Kallakurichi

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 05, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Portal silence requires tax officers to explore alternative Section 169 service before ex parte orders.. M/s.Akashdurai Super Market vs The State Tax Officer (ST) Kallakurichi. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

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. 2

The 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. 2

The 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. 2–3

The 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. 3
02

Issues

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. 2–4

2. Whether remittal for fresh consideration should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

Source reference: pp. 3, 5
03

Law 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. 4

Although 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. 4

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the orders and remit the matter on conditions.

Source reference: pp. 1, 5
04

Reasoning

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. 4

In 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, 5
05

Holding

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. 5

The petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Source reference: p. 6
06

Acts & 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

Section 73Section 169Section 169
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

M/s.Akashdurai Super MarketvsThe State Tax Officer (ST) Kallakurichi

Madras High Court · October 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment