Unsubstantiated service of GST show-cause notices warrants fresh consideration, subject to a 20% tax deposit.

The petitioner, a civil contractor, challenged assessment orders for 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21 dated 19 April 2024, 28 March 2024 and 18 February 2025.

He contended that he had not received an effective opportunity to object to the assessments, and that the orders did not establish service of the show-cause notices or provide details of the emails allegedly sent to his tax practitioner.

The respondents maintained that the orders were appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act and that the petitioner had been served, but acknowledged that the statutory appeal period had elapsed.

The petitioner sought to have the orders quashed and the matter reconsidered after he was given an opportunity to file objections.

Whether the assessment orders should be set aside and the matters reconsidered where the record did not substantiate service of the show-cause notices or provide details of the emails allegedly sent to the petitioner’s tax practitioner.

Whether, despite the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act and expiry of the appeal limitation period, the Court should grant relief under Articles 226 and 227 subject to conditions.

Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides a statutory appeal against the impugned orders; the Court noted that the prescribed limitation period could not be condoned in the circumstances described.

The Court applied the principle that a person affected by an assessment should have an opportunity to place objections before the authority, and, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, relied on Sri Siddappa v. Assistant Commissioner, W.P. No. 204270/2025, disposed of on 14 August 2026, in directing reconsideration subject to deposit of 20% of the tax demand.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Although the assessment orders stated that show-cause notices had been issued, the materials before the Court did not substantiate whether the notices had been served.

Nor did the orders identify when or with what details emails had been sent to the petitioner’s tax practitioner.

The Court considered that the petitioner’s grievance concerned the lack of an opportunity to file objections, while also recognising that the orders were appealable and the appeal limitation period had expired.

In view of these circumstances, and relying on Sri Siddappa, it ordered reconsideration on the merits, conditioned on the petitioner depositing 20% of the tax demand.

It permitted the petitioner to file objections and supporting documents within one month of receiving the order, and directed him to appear before respondent No. 1 on 5 November 2026 and respondent No. 2 on 12 November 2026.

The petitioner was also directed to deposit 20% of the tax amount under the impugned orders; if he failed to make the deposit or appear on the specified dates, the impugned orders would stand revived.

No order as to costs was made.