Tax officers should pursue alternative statutory service when GST portal notices receive no response.

The petitioner challenged a Form GST DRC-07 order dated 15 November 2025 concerning the 2021–22 financial year.

Its GST registration had been cancelled on its application with effect from 30 June 2024.

The respondent had uploaded notices to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it had not become aware of them and had received no physical notice.

The respondent admitted that no personal hearing was given before the impugned order.

The petitioner offered to pay 20% of the disputed tax, and the respondent consented to remand on that condition.

Whether the assessment order could stand when the petitioner was not given a personal hearing before it was passed

Whether portal-only service, in the circumstances—including the petitioner’s cancelled registration and lack of response—provided an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings

Whether the matter should be remanded subject to payment of 20% of the disputed tax

Section 75(4) of the CGST Act requires an opportunity of personal hearing where one is requested or where an adverse decision is contemplated.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for recognised modes of serving notices and orders; where a taxpayer does not respond to portal communications, the authority should consider other prescribed modes, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due, to achieve effective service.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, requiring a meaningful opportunity to respond before an adverse order is made.

The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded only to the GST portal and that the respondent had provided no personal hearing; the respondent’s counsel fairly admitted the latter.

Although portal service is a valid mode, the Court considered that repeated non-response should prompt the officer to consider other modes permitted by Section 169(1), particularly where the notices followed cancellation of the petitioner’s registration.

In the Court’s view, failing to explore those modes risked reducing service to an empty formality and deprived the petitioner of an effective opportunity to be heard.

Given the admitted absence of a personal hearing and the petitioner’s offer to pay 20% of the disputed tax, the Court ordered remand on that condition.

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

The respondent must then give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order 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 ordered.