Madras High Court
Tax LawAdministrative and Public Law

Tax officers must explore alternative Section 169 service modes when portal notices receive no response.

M/s.SIVAM CONSTRUCTIONS AND ARCHITECTS vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST),

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 07, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Tax officers must explore alternative Section 169 service modes when portal notices receive no response.. M/s.SIVAM CONSTRUCTIONS  AND ARCHITECTS vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST),. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner challenged the respondent’s assessment order dated 11 December 2025, issued in Form GST DRC-07.

Source reference: p. 1–3

The 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. 1–3

The 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. 1–3

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought an opportunity to present its case

Source reference: p. 1–3
02

Issues

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. 2–4

2. Whether the remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax

Source reference: p. 3, 5
03

Law 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. 4–5

Although 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. 4–5

The judgment also proceeded on the requirement that the taxpayer be afforded a personal hearing before the matter is determined on remand.

Source reference: p. 4–5
04

Reasoning

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. 3–5

It 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. 3–5

In 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. 3–5
05

Holding

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. 5–6

The 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. 5–6

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

Source reference: p. 5–6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

M/s.SIVAM CONSTRUCTIONS AND ARCHITECTSvsTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST),

Madras High Court · October 07, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment