Facts
The petitioner challenged the respondent’s assessment order dated 11 December 2025, issued in Form GST DRC-07.
Source reference: p. 1–3The notices had been uploaded to the GST common portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not received the show-cause notice.
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioner did not file a reply, and the respondent admitted that no personal hearing had been provided before the order was passed.
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought an opportunity to present its case
Source reference: p. 1–3Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and received no personal hearing
Source reference: p. 2–42. Whether the remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax
Source reference: p. 3, 5Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the common portal and other modes.
Source reference: p. 4–5Although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded there, the issuing officer should consider other available modes of service—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective.
Source reference: p. 4–5The judgment also proceeded on the requirement that the taxpayer be afforded a personal hearing before the matter is determined on remand.
Source reference: p. 4–5Reasoning
The Court noted that the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner claimed not to have seen them and had not received the original show-cause notice.
Source reference: p. 3–5It held that, despite portal service being legally sufficient, the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to explore other service modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceed ex parte without a personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 3–5In light of the respondent’s concession and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found remand appropriate on that condition
Source reference: p. 3–5Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 11 December 2025 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside would take effect upon payment.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
Source reference: p. 5–6The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, consider the petitioner’s response, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5–6The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed
Source reference: p. 5–6Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171
Original Court PDF
M/s.SIVAM CONSTRUCTIONS AND ARCHITECTSvsTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST),
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
