Tax authorities must explore alternative Section 169 service modes after taxpayers ignore portal notices.

The petitioners challenged ex parte GST orders dated 15 November 2024 and 17 December 2024, together with bank attachment notices dated 25 September 2026.

They submitted that the notices had been uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal, of which they were unaware, and that they had not received a personal hearing.

The first respondent conceded that the 2024 orders were ex parte and stated that eight attachment-related orders had been passed.

The petitioners offered to pay 20% of the disputed tax for the challenged matters; they also stated that they would pay the full tax for four other, unchallenged orders.

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).

Although portal service is a sufficient mode of service, effective administration of notice requires the officer to consider other available modes when the taxpayer does not respond; merely completing formalities may not provide an effective opportunity to be heard.

The Court also applied the principles of procedural fairness and personal hearing in the circumstances of the case.

The Court accepted that portal upload constituted a valid mode of service, but considered that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to explore other service methods under Section 169(1), preferably RPAD, rather than proceed ex parte without an effective opportunity for the petitioners to respond.

In light of that procedural deficiency and the petitioners’ offer to pay 20% of the disputed tax, the Court ordered remand on payment terms.

It further held that the bank attachments could not survive once the underlying orders were set aside.

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

The petitioners must file their replies and supporting documents within four weeks after payment; the first respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

The banks were directed to release the attachments and defreeze the accounts upon proof of payment.

The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.