Tax officers should pursue alternative Section 169 service when taxpayers do not respond to portal notices.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 23 April 2024, contending that notices uploaded to the GST portal were not brought to her attention and that no personal hearing was provided before the order was made.

The respondents accepted that no personal hearing had been given, while maintaining that notices had been uploaded to the portal.

The petitioner offered to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount and sought both a remand and release of the attachment on her bank account.

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

2. Whether the attachment on the petitioner’s bank account should be lifted upon setting aside the assessment order, subject to the petitioner’s deposit of 10% of the disputed tax.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service of notices and orders; where there is no response to notices uploaded through one mode, the officer should consider other available modes, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to achieve effective service.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, holding that the petitioner should have an opportunity to be heard before the assessment is determined.

Although portal upload was a valid mode of service, the Court considered that the petitioner had not responded and that the assessment was made without a personal hearing.

It observed that, in those circumstances, the officer should have considered other modes of service under Section 169(1), rather than relying only on portal notices and proceeding ex parte.

Given the respondents’ admission that no hearing had been provided and the petitioner’s undertaking to deposit 10% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

The petitioner must file objections and supporting documents within three weeks of payment, after which the respondent must issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits.

The respondent was directed to instruct the bank to release the attachment and defreeze the account upon proof of payment; if the respondent does not communicate the lifting of the attachment, the petitioner may produce proof of deposit and the order directly to the bank, which must then permit normal operation of the account.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.