Textile Trader Gets Fresh GST Hearing After 15% Of Disputed Tax Is Paid, As Madras HC Says Officers Should Try Other Service Modes For Unanswered Portal Notices

In brief

The question

Whether the assessment and appeal rejection orders should be set aside where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was provided before assessment.

The court held

The Court set aside the assessment and appeal rejection orders and remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 15% of the disputed tax within four weeks.

It also directed

The petitioner must file its objections and supporting documents within three weeks after payment; the officer must then provide 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits.

The bank account attachment is to be lifted, and the bank must defreeze the account upon proof of payment.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 31 May 2025 for FY 2018–19 and the consequential appeal rejection order dated 27 February 2026.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 1, 3–5

It contended that notices uploaded to the GST portal were not brought to its attention and that the assessment was made without a personal hearing.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 1, 3–5

The State accepted that no personal hearing had been provided.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 1, 3–5

The petitioner offered to pay 15% of the disputed tax in return for a fresh adjudication.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 1, 3–5

The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded on the portal.

p. 4 · ¶ 7

02Issues

i.Whether the assessment and appeal rejection orders should be set aside where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was provided before assessment.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3–5, 7

ii.Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication subject to payment of 15% of the disputed tax.

pp. 3, 5–6 · ¶ 4–5, 10

03Law Applied

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

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–9

Although portal service is sufficient, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the proper officer should consider using other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to ensure effective service.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–9

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing before the ex parte assessment as a procedural defect warranting reconsideration.

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that portal upload constituted a valid mode of service, but considered that the lack of any response should have prompted the officer to explore other service modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceed on the basis of portal notices alone.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 7–10

The admitted absence of a personal hearing reinforced the conclusion that the assessment should be reconsidered.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 7–10

Given the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 15% of the disputed tax, the Court ordered a conditional remand.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 7–10