Tax authorities must explore alternative Section 169 service modes when portal notices go unanswered.

The petitioner challenged the assessment order and DRC-07 dated 24 December 2024, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act.

The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it had not seen them and therefore had not submitted a reply.

The petitioner also contended that it was not given a personal hearing.

The first respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to remand the matter subject to the petitioner paying 50% of the disputed tax.

The petitioner offered to make that payment and sought an opportunity to respond to the proposals.

Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was provided and the petitioner did not respond.

Whether the petitioner’s bank-account attachment should continue while the assessment order is set aside, subject to payment of 50% of the disputed tax.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for multiple valid modes of service.

The Court observed that portal service is sufficient, but where a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded through that mode, the proper officer should explore other modes available under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to ensure effective service.

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing as a denial of an opportunity to be heard before the adverse order was made.

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner claimed it was unaware of the notice, and the first respondent admitted that no personal hearing had been given.

The Court held that, in the absence of any response to portal notices, the officer should have considered other statutory modes of service rather than proceed ex parte; otherwise, portal service risked becoming an empty formality.

In view of these circumstances and the petitioner’s willingness to pay 50% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remand appropriate.

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

The first respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

Upon production of proof of payment, the first respondent must instruct the bank to lift any attachment and defreeze the petitioner’s account.

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