Tiruppur Cotton Firm’s GST Assessments Reopened On 25% Deposit, As Madras HC Says Officers Should Try Other Notice Modes After Portal Silence

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment orders should be set aside and the matters remanded where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner did not respond and was not afforded a personal hearing.

The court held

The Court set aside the assessment orders and remanded the matters, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax in each petition within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect from the date of payment.

It also directed

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

The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, consider the petitioner’s submissions, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

The petitions were disposed of without costs.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 20 November 2025 concerning GST assessment years 2019–20, 2020–21 and 2021–22, passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017.

pp. 1–3, 6

The petitioner said it had not seen notices uploaded to the GST portal and had therefore not replied; it also alleged that no personal hearing was provided.

pp. 1–3, 6

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

pp. 1–3, 6

The petitioner had also pleaded limitation in relation to one assessment, but the Court did not determine that issue.

pp. 1–3, 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment orders should be set aside and the matters remanded where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner did not respond and was not afforded a personal hearing.

pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether remand should be conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

pp. 3, 5–6

03Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 recognises the modes of service prescribed under the Act; uploading a notice to the GST portal is a sufficient mode of service.

pp. 4–5

However, where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices or repeated reminders, the officer should consider other available modes of service under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD), to make service effective.

pp. 4–5

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice in requiring a personal hearing before fresh orders were passed.

pp. 4–5

No precedents were cited.

pp. 4–5

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73 Section 74 Section 169

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that portal service was legally sufficient, but considered that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to explore other statutory modes of service rather than proceed ex parte.

pp. 3–5

The respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been given reinforced the need to set aside the orders and provide a fresh opportunity to respond and be heard.

pp. 3–5

Given the petitioner’s offer and the respondent’s position, the Court made remand conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

pp. 3–5

05Holding

pp. 5–6

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

pp. 5–6

The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, consider the petitioner’s submissions, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.

pp. 5–6

The petitions were disposed of without costs.

pp. 5–6

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF