Tax officers must pursue alternative Section 169 service when portal notices draw no response.

The petitioner challenged the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 5 December 2025 and the subsequent order rejecting its rectification application dated 5 February 2026.

The petitioner said the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, which it had not checked, and that it had therefore failed to respond.

It also submitted that it had paid the disputed tax and had not been afforded a personal hearing.

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and sought remittal of the matter.

Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the petitioner received notice only through the GST portal and was not given a personal hearing

Whether an officer, after receiving no response to portal notices, should take steps to serve notices through other modes permitted by Section 169(1) of the GST Act

Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for legally recognised modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other prescribed modes.

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

The Court also proceeded on the requirement that the taxpayer be afforded a personal hearing before an adverse order is made in the circumstances of this case.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court accepted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal but noted the petitioner’s assertion that it was unaware of the notice and that no personal hearing had been given.

The respondent confirmed the absence of a hearing.

The Court held that, despite portal service being legally sufficient, an officer receiving no response should consider other modes of service under Section 169(1); otherwise, service may amount only to an empty formality.

Given the lack of effective follow-up service, the absence of a hearing, and the petitioner’s submission that it had paid the disputed tax, the Court considered remittal appropriate.

The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of receiving the order.

Upon receipt, the respondent must issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, hear the petitioner, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.