Tax officers must explore alternative Section 169 service modes when taxpayers do not respond to portal notices.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 22 December 2025, contending that the notices had been uploaded only to the GST portal and that its accountant had not viewed them.

The petitioner said it therefore had no opportunity to respond or attend a personal hearing; the respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided.

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in return for an opportunity to contest the assessment.

It also sought removal of a bank attachment imposed by notice dated 11 June 2026.

Whether, where portal-uploaded notices received no response, the respondent’s failure to use other available modes of service and to provide a personal hearing justified setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter.

Whether the bank attachment could continue after the assessment order was set aside, subject to the petitioner’s payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises the prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal.

The Court accepted that portal service is sufficient, but held that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other modes available under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to make service effective rather than merely formal.

No judicial precedent was cited.

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner claimed it was unaware of the notice, and the respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been afforded before the assessment was made.

The Court considered that, in the absence of a response to portal notices, the officer should have explored other statutory modes of service; simply completing portal formalities and proceeding ex parte risked ineffective notice and further litigation.

In light of these circumstances and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court ordered a remand on that condition.

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

The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law.

The bank must defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the Court’s order and proof of the required payment.

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