Facts
The petitioner challenged the respondent’s order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 18 December 2025 for the tax period 2021–22.
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioner said it had not seen notices uploaded to the GST portal and had therefore not replied; it also asserted that no personal hearing had been provided.
Source reference: p. 1–3The respondent accepted that no personal hearing was given and agreed to remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax. The petitioner was willing to make that payment
Source reference: p. 1–3Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but the petitioner did not respond and was not given a personal hearing
Source reference: p. 2–42. Whether remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax
Source reference: p. 3, 5Law Applied
The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 and considered Section 169(1) of the GST Act, which recognises prescribed modes of service, including portal-based service and other available modes.
Source reference: p. 4–5Although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the issuing officer should explore other modes under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to make service effective.
Source reference: p. 4–5The Court also applied the principle that an adverse order should not be made without a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing
Source reference: p. 4–5Reasoning
The Court accepted that uploading the show-cause notice to the GST portal constituted a mode of service, but considered that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to explore other available service methods.
Source reference: p. 3–5It found that the assessment order had been made without a personal hearing and that the officer had not made sufficient efforts to effect service effectively
Source reference: p. 3–5Given the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court considered a conditional remand appropriate.
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the judgment; the setting aside would take effect upon payment.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment. The respondent must then provide 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5–6The 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
VV AssociatesvsDEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER - II
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
