Tax officers must explore alternative Section 169 service modes before passing ex parte assessments after portal notices go unanswered.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 15 April 2024, submitting that notices uploaded to the GST portal were not brought to his attention and that he had no opportunity to respond or attend a personal hearing.

The respondent maintained that the notices had been uploaded to the portal but conceded that no personal hearing had been provided before the order was passed.

The petitioner offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax and sought a fresh opportunity to present his case.

Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was afforded before the order was passed

Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration subject to the petitioner’s payment of 10% of the disputed tax

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

Although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due—to achieve effective service.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, requiring a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse assessment order is made.

No precedent was cited.

The Court accepted that uploading the show-cause notice to the GST portal constituted a valid mode of service, but held that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to consider other service methods available under Section 169(1), rather than proceed ex parte.

The respondent’s concession that no personal hearing had been given reinforced the conclusion that the petitioner had not received an adequate opportunity to present his case.

In light of the petitioner’s offer to pay 10% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remand appropriate.

The petitioner must file his reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment; thereafter, the respondent must issue 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing 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.