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

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 29 April 2026 and a consequential bank attachment notice dated 28 August 2026.

The petitioner said notices had been uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, but they were unaware of them and had not replied; they also argued that no personal hearing was provided.

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been given, while submitting that notices had been uploaded to the portal.

The petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount in return for an opportunity to present their case.

Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided.

Whether the consequential bank attachment should remain in force while the matter is remanded subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax.

The Court referred to Section 169(1) of the GST Act, which recognises prescribed modes of service, and held that portal upload is a sufficient mode of 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 (RPAD), to achieve effective service.

The Court also applied the requirement of a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an adverse assessment is made; no statutory provision or precedent was expressly cited for that principle.

Although portal upload constituted sufficient service, the petitioner’s lack of response should have prompted the officer to consider other modes of service rather than proceed through what the Court described as empty formalities.

The respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been provided, together with the petitioner’s offer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, supported setting aside the assessment and remitting the matter for a fresh decision.

Since the attachment was consequential to the order being set aside, it could not continue once the required deposit was made.

The petitioner was to file objections and supporting documents within three weeks of payment. The respondent was then to give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits in accordance with law.

Upon proof of payment, the respondent was directed to arrange for the bank attachment to be lifted; if the respondent failed to communicate the release, the petitioner could present proof of deposit and the order to the bank, which was directed to defreeze the account.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.