Facts
The petitioner challenged the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30 October 2025 for FY 2021–22.
Source reference: paras. 1, 3; pp. 2–3It contended that notices were uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, of which it was unaware, and that no personal hearing preceded the order.
Source reference: paras. 1, 3; pp. 2–3The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to remand subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.
Source reference: paras. 4–5; pp. 3–4The petitioner also expressed willingness to make that payment.
Source reference: paras. 4–5; pp. 3–4Issues
Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no personal hearing was afforded before an ex parte decision.
Source reference: paras. 3, 7–9; pp. 2, 4–5Whether the matter should be remanded subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax, and what consequential directions should be made regarding attachment.
Source reference: paras. 4–5, 10; pp. 3–6Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal.
Source reference: paras. 8–9; p. 5The Court held that portal service is sufficient, but 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 achieve effective service rather than merely fulfil formalities.
Source reference: paras. 8–9; p. 5The Court also proceeded on the basis that the petitioner should receive a personal hearing before the matter is determined afresh.
Source reference: para. 10(iii); p. 6Reasoning
Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded on the GST portal, the petitioner claimed not to have known of it, and the respondent admitted that no personal hearing was given before the assessment order was passed.
Source reference: paras. 7–8; pp. 4–5The Court considered that, in the absence of a response to portal notices, the officer should have explored other statutory service modes to make service effective.
Source reference: para. 9; p. 5Given this procedural deficiency and the petitioner’s willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the order conditionally and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
Source reference: paras. 9–10; pp. 5–6Holding
The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the assessment order, with that setting aside to take effect upon payment of 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receipt of the order; any amount already recovered or deposited may be adjusted.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment, after which the respondent must issue 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and decide the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: para. 10(ii)–(iii); p. 6The bank-account attachment is to be lifted upon proof of payment, with provision for the petitioner to present the order and payment proof directly to the bank if the respondent does not communicate the release; the separate property attachment was not lifted and is to remain until the matter attains finality.
Source reference: para. 10(iv)–(vi); pp. 6–7No costs were awarded.
Source reference: para. 11; p. 7Acts & 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
Rajasakthi Departmental Store,vsCommercial Tax Officer / Assistant Commissioner (S
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
