When portal notices go unanswered, tax officers should explore alternative service modes under Section 169.

The petitioner challenged an assessment order and consequential demand order dated 8 December 2025 for FY 2021–22.

The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not filed a reply.

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.

The petitioner also submitted that 50% of the disputed tax had already been recovered from its electronic cash ledger (ECL).

The Court considered the matter at the admission stage by consent.

1. Whether the assessment and demand orders should be set aside where the petitioner received no personal hearing and the respondent had not explored other available modes of service after portal notices went unanswered.

2. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration, having regard to the asserted recovery of 50% of the disputed tax from the petitioner’s ECL.

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises the prescribed modes of serving notices and orders.

Although uploading a notice to the GST portal is a sufficient mode of service, where notices sent through that mode receive no response, the officer should consider using other available statutory modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD)—to achieve effective service and avoid merely formal compliance.

The Court also relied on the requirement of a personal hearing in the circumstances of this assessment; no precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the respondent had admitted that the petitioner was not given a personal hearing before the ex parte assessment was made.

While portal service was legally sufficient, the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to consider other modes under Section 169(1), rather than proceed on the basis of portal service alone.

Given the lack of a hearing and the petitioner’s submission that 50% of the disputed tax had been recovered, the Court considered remand appropriate, subject to verification of that recovery.

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

Upon filing, the respondent must provide 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, then decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.