Tax officers should pursue alternative Section 169 service before passing ex parte orders.

The petitioner challenged a GST demand order dated 31 October 2025 for FY 2022–23, contending that it had not become aware of notices uploaded to the GST portal and had therefore not filed a reply.

It also alleged that no personal hearing was provided.

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been afforded and agreed to remand the matter subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax.

The petitioner offered to make that payment.

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

Whether remand should be conditional on the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax.

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

Although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices, the authority should consider other available modes of service under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to ensure effective service rather than merely formal compliance.

The Court also proceeded on the basis that the petitioner should receive a personal hearing before fresh orders are made, and conditioned the remand on payment of 10% of the disputed tax.

The Court accepted that uploading the show-cause notice to the GST portal constituted a valid mode of service, but considered the absence of any response a reason for the officer to explore other statutory service modes.

It found that the assessment order had been made without a personal hearing, a point the respondent fairly admitted.

In those circumstances, and given the petitioner’s willingness to pay 10% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remand appropriate, subject to that payment.

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

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

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