Tax officers should pursue alternative Section 169 service when portal notices receive no response.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 20 December 2025 under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, and the consequential Form GST DRC-07.

It said the notices had been uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, of which it was unaware, and that no personal hearing had been provided before the order was made.

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in return for reconsideration.

The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and did not oppose remittal subject to that payment.

1. Whether an assessment order confirming the show-cause notice proposals could stand where the taxpayer did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and was not given a personal hearing.

2. Whether, in the circumstances, the assessment should be set aside and remitted subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service by uploading communications on the common portal.

The Court accepted that portal service is valid, but held that where the taxpayer does not respond to repeated portal notices, the officer should consider other available modes under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to make service effective.

The Court also proceeded on the admitted absence of a personal hearing before the impugned order and exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the order and remit the matter.

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded on the GST portal, the petitioner claimed it was unaware of the notice, and the respondent admitted that no personal hearing had been afforded.

The Court considered portal service legally valid but found that, given the absence of any response, the officer should have explored other statutory service modes rather than proceed ex parte after completing what the Court described as formalities that were not effective in the circumstances.

The petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax supported remittal on conditions.

The petitioner must pay 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment, with any amount already recovered adjustable against it.

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

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

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