Tax officers must pursue alternative Section 169 service before passing ex parte assessments.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 29 December 2023 for assessment year 2017–18.

It contended that notices were uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, of which it was unaware, and that the assessment was made without a personal hearing.

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in return for a fresh opportunity to present its case.

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the petitioner claimed not to have known of notices uploaded to the GST portal and no personal hearing was afforded.

2. Whether remittal should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax, and what consequential directions were warranted.

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

Although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to repeated portal notices, the officer should consider other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective rather than merely formal.

The Court also applied the requirement of a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing before finalising the assessment in the circumstances of this case.

The Court accepted that uploading notices to the portal constitutes valid service, but held that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to consider another statutory mode of service.

The petitioner had not received an effective opportunity to participate, and the respondent admitted that no personal hearing had been given before the order was made.

In light of those circumstances and the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remittal appropriate.

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 the merits and in accordance with law.

The respondent was also directed to instruct the bank to release the attachment and defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the order.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.