Facts
The petitioner challenged the respondent’s assessment order dated 23 December 2025 for FY 2021–22.
Source reference: p. 2–4The show-cause notice and related communications had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not received the original notice.
Source reference: p. 2–4The petitioner did not respond within time, and the assessment order was passed without a personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 2–4The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given and agreed to remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
Source reference: p. 2–4The petitioner offered to make that payment.
Source reference: p. 2, 5Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded when the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded to the GST portal and was not given a personal hearing
Source reference: p. 2–42. Whether remand should be conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other authorised modes.
Source reference: p. 3–4Portal service is sufficient service; however, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other available modes under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to secure effective service.
Source reference: p. 3–4The Court also applied the requirement of a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the matter.
Source reference: p. 2–3, 5No precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner claimed it had no knowledge of it, and the respondent admitted that no personal hearing had been provided.
Source reference: p. 3–4The Court held that, in the absence of a response to portal notices, the officer should have explored other statutory modes of service; merely completing formalities before passing an ex parte order would not ensure effective service.
Source reference: p. 3–4In light of the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter on that condition.
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 23 December 2025 and remanding the matter, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
Source reference: p. 5The respondent must then issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, consider the petitioner’s submissions, and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5No costs were ordered.
Source reference: p. 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
Tvl ESGI Garments Pvt Ltd,vsThe Stae Tax officer
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
