Unanswered GST portal notices require officers to pursue alternative statutory service before ex parte assessment.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 10 April 2026, passed under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, and its summary order.

The notices had been uploaded to the GST common portal; the petitioner stated that he had not seen them and therefore did not submit a reply.

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided before the assessment order was passed.

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in exchange for an opportunity to present his case, and the respondent consented to remittal on that condition.

The petitioner also sought relief in relation to an attachment of his bank account.

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was provided.

2. Whether remittal could be made conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax, with consequential directions concerning the petitioner’s bank-account attachment.

The Court considered Section 74 and Section 169(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act.

Portal upload may constitute valid service, but Section 169(1) provides other modes of service as well; where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the issuing officer should explore other prescribed modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective rather than merely formal.

The Court also applied the procedural requirement of affording a personal hearing before deciding the matter, as reflected in its finding that the impugned order was made without such an opportunity.

No precedent was cited.

Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner claimed not to have become aware of it, and the Court found that the assessment order confirmed the notice proposals without affording a personal hearing.

The Court reasoned that, in the absence of a response to portal notices, the officer should have considered other service modes available under Section 169(1), particularly RPAD, rather than relying solely on portal upload and proceeding ex parte.

Given the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax and the respondent’s agreement to remittal on that basis, the Court set aside the order and directed fresh consideration.

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

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

The Court further directed that the bank account be de-frozen upon production of the order and proof of the required payment.

No costs were ordered.