Tax authorities should explore other Section 169 service modes when portal notices go unanswered.

The petitioner challenged the respondent’s assessment order dated 28 August 2024, issued after notices were uploaded to the GST portal.

The petitioner said it had not seen the notices, had not received the original show-cause notice, and had no opportunity for a personal hearing.

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to a remand subject to payment of 25% of the CGST tax amount.

The petitioner stated that it had paid the SGST tax in full and was willing to pay the required 25% of the CGST tax.

Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the petitioner received no personal hearing.

Whether, when a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded to the portal, the officer should explore other modes of service permitted by Section 169(1) of the GST Act.

The Court considered Section 169(1) of the GST Act, which provides for valid modes of service, including uploading communications to the common portal and other prescribed modes.

Although portal service is sufficient in law, the Court stated that where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the officer should explore other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective.

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing as a procedural deficiency warranting reconsideration; it cited no precedent.

The Court accepted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, but noted that the petitioner claimed not to have known of it and that the assessment was made without a personal hearing.

It reasoned that, in the absence of any response to portal notices, the officer should have considered other statutory service modes rather than relying on portal uploads alone; failure to do so risked making service an empty formality and contributing to further litigation.

Given the petitioner’s payment of the SGST tax and willingness to pay 25% of the CGST tax, and the respondent’s agreement to remand on that condition, the Court ordered fresh consideration subject to payment.

The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment.

The respondent was directed to provide 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and then decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.

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