Provision Store Gets GST Rehearing On 10% Deposit, As Madras HC Urges RPAD When Portal Notices Draw No Reply

In brief

The question

Whether passing the impugned assessment orders without providing a personal hearing, after notices were uploaded to the GST portal but received no response, warranted setting them aside.

The court held

The Court set aside the orders dated 9 December 2025 and 22 December 2025 and remanded the matters to the respondent, conditional on the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order.

It also directed

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

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

The setting aside takes effect from the date of payment.

The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 9 December 2025 and 22 December 2025.

¶ 1, 3–5 · pp. 2–3

It contended that notices uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal had gone unnoticed and that the orders were passed without a personal hearing.

¶ 1, 3–5 · pp. 2–3

The petitioner offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax to secure a fresh hearing; the respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given and agreed to remittal subject to that payment.

¶ 1, 3–5 · pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.Whether passing the impugned assessment orders without providing a personal hearing, after notices were uploaded to the GST portal but received no response, warranted setting them aside.

¶ 3, 5, 7–9

ii.Whether the matters should be remitted for fresh consideration subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax.

¶ 4–5, 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).

¶ 8–9

Although portal service is a valid mode, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the authority should consider using other available modes to achieve effective service.

¶ 7–9

An ex parte order passed without an effective opportunity to respond or a personal hearing may fail to meet the requirements of natural justice.

¶ 7–9

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

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that uploading notices to the GST portal constituted a valid mode of service, but held that the absence of any response should have prompted the respondent to explore other service modes under Section 169(1), preferably RPAD.

¶ 7–10

The respondent also admitted that no personal hearing had been afforded.

¶ 7–10

In these circumstances, and in light of the petitioner’s offer to pay 10% of the disputed tax, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the orders and remit the matters for fresh consideration.

¶ 7–10