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

The petitioner challenged the respondent’s assessment order dated 15 December 2025 for FY 2021–22.

The petitioner stated that notices and communications had been uploaded to the “View Additional Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal and that it had not become aware of them in time to respond.

It also alleged that no personal hearing was provided.

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given and agreed to remand subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax; the petitioner offered to make that payment.

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226.

Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the taxpayer did not respond, and no personal hearing was provided

Whether remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax and accompanied by directions for a fresh hearing and release of any bank-account attachment

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises the prescribed modes of service of notices and orders.

Uploading a notice to the GST portal is a sufficient mode of service; however, where the taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the officer should consider other modes permitted by Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to make service effective.

The judgment also proceeded on the requirement that the petitioner be given a personal hearing before fresh orders are passed.

No precedent was cited.

The Court accepted that portal upload constitutes service, but held that, in the absence of a response to repeated notices, the officer should have explored other statutory service modes rather than proceed on the basis of portal communications alone.

It found that the assessment order had been made without a personal hearing, a fact acknowledged by the respondent, and that the petitioner was willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax.

These circumstances justified setting aside the order and remitting the matter for reconsideration on conditions.

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

The respondent must then provide 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

Any bank-account attachment must be lifted upon proof of payment; if the respondent does not communicate its release, the petitioner may present proof of payment and the order to the bank, which must then defreeze the account.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs; the connected applications were allowed or closed as applicable.