Tax officers should explore alternative Section 169 service modes before passing ex parte orders on unanswered portal notices.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 1 December 2025 and a consequential order dated 20 July 2026.

The notices had been uploaded to the GST common portal, but the petitioner said it had not viewed them and was unaware of the proceedings.

The assessment was made without a personal hearing.

The petitioner’s appeal was rejected on 7 May 2026, and its subsequent rectification application was rejected on 20 July 2026.

The petitioner stated that it had paid 10% of the disputed tax when filing the appeal and was willing to pay a further 15%.

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to a remand subject to payment of the additional 15%.

1. Whether the assessment and consequential order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was given to the petitioner

2. Whether remand for fresh consideration should be conditional on payment of a further 15% of the disputed tax

Section 169(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 recognises the modes by which notices and orders may be served; service through the GST portal is a valid mode.

However, where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the issuing officer should consider other available modes of service under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to achieve effective service.

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing in the circumstances as a basis for remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

No precedent was cited.

The Court accepted that portal service was legally sufficient, but considered that repeated non-response should have prompted the officer to explore other statutory service methods rather than proceed ex parte.

The failure to provide a personal hearing, together with the lack of efforts to secure effective service, supported setting aside the assessment and remitting the matter.

The petitioner’s offer to pay a further 15% of the disputed tax, and the respondent’s position, justified making remand conditional on that payment.

The petitioner must pay 15% of the disputed tax within four weeks; the setting aside takes effect from the date of payment.

The petitioner must then file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.

After receiving the reply, the respondent must give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass appropriate orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

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