When GST Portal Notices Go Unanswered, Officers Should Explore Other Service Modes, Madras HC Says, Remanding Case On 15% Disputed-Tax Payment

In brief

The question

Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided before the order was made.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 18 February 2025, subject to the petitioner paying 15% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order; the setting aside would take effect upon payment, with any amount already recovered or deposited adjustable against the required payment.

It also directed

The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.

The respondent must then provide 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.

The petition was disposed of without costs, and the application to dispense with production of the original impugned order was allowed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order dated 18 February 2025, contending that notices were uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal and that it was unaware of them.

¶ 3, 5 · pp. 2–3

The petitioner had not filed a response, and the respondent admitted that no personal hearing was provided before the order was passed.

¶ 3, 5 · pp. 2–3

The petitioner offered to pay 15% of the disputed tax in exchange for an opportunity to present its case.

¶ 4 · p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided before the order was made.

¶ 7–9 · pp. 3–5

ii.Whether remand for fresh consideration should be conditional on the petitioner paying 15% of the disputed tax.

¶ 10 · p. 5

03Law Applied

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

¶ 8–9 · pp. 4–5

The Court observed that where portal notices receive no response, the proper officer should consider other available modes of service under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to achieve effective service rather than merely formal compliance.

¶ 8–9 · pp. 4–5

The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing before the impugned order as a procedural deficiency warranting reconsideration.

¶ 7, 10 · p. 3, 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 169

04Reasoning

Although service by uploading a notice to the GST portal is a valid mode, the Court considered that repeated non-response should prompt the officer to explore other statutory service methods.

¶ 8–9 · pp. 4–5

Otherwise, portal-only service may amount to an empty formality and lead to ex parte orders and further litigation.

¶ 8–9 · pp. 4–5

The respondent also acknowledged that no personal hearing had been afforded.

¶ 5, 10 · p. 3, 5

In light of that procedural deficiency and the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 15% of the disputed tax, the Court ordered remand on that condition.

¶ 5, 10 · p. 3, 5