Tax officers should pursue alternative statutory service modes when portal notices go unanswered.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order and consequential DRC-07 order, both dated 30 December 2025, concerning FY 2021–2022.

Notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said its consultant had not viewed them and that it was unaware of the proceedings.

The petitioner further submitted that no personal hearing had been provided and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax to obtain a fresh hearing.

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given and agreed to remand the matter subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

1. Whether passing the assessment order without a personal hearing, where the notices had been uploaded to the GST portal but received no response, warranted setting the order aside.

2. Whether remand for fresh consideration could be conditioned on payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

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

The Court accepted that portal service is sufficient, but held that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should explore other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to achieve effective service; merely completing formalities before proceeding ex parte may lead to avoidable further litigation.

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

The Court considered that, when portal notices received no response, the officer should have attempted another authorised mode of service rather than proceed ex parte.

In light of this shortcoming and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for a hearing on the merits, subject to that payment.

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

The respondent was then to provide 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.

Any bank-account attachment was to be lifted upon production of proof of payment.

No costs were awarded.