Repeated GST portal uploads do not suffice as effective service when the taxpayer remains unresponsive.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 4 December 2025 and the accompanying DRC-07 order under Section 73, contending that the show-cause notice and personal-hearing notice had only been uploaded to the GST Portal and that no physical copies had been served.

The petitioner stated that it had no occasion to access the portal and had therefore been unable to respond or attend a hearing.

It offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand and sought an opportunity to file objections and be heard. The respondent did not oppose remand on that condition.

Whether the assessment order should be set aside where the petitioner claimed that the notices were not effectively served and it was not afforded a personal hearing.

Whether the matter should be remanded subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax demand.

Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court applied the principles of natural justice, including the requirement that a party receive a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard before an adverse order is made.

It observed that where the statute provides alternative modes of service, the authority should adopt an effective mode rather than repeatedly relying on uploads to the common GST Portal when no response is received.

The Court referred to the impugned demand as an order under Section 73 but cited no specific provision governing service or precedent.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s account that it was unaware of the portal-uploaded show-cause notice and had not received a physical copy. Given the absence of a response, the respondent should have used an effective mode of service rather than relying solely on repeated portal uploads.

The resulting lack of a personal hearing deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to establish its case and violated natural justice. In view of the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax and the respondent’s position, the Court ordered a conditional remand.

The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within two weeks thereafter. The respondent must then consider the filing, give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing, hear the petitioner, and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

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