The Madras High Court has held that GST officers should explore alternative modes of serving notices under Section 169 of the GST Act when a taxpayer does not respond to communications uploaded on the GST portal. While recognising portal uploading as sufficient service, the Court cautioned against mechanically issuing reminders and passing ex parte orders without making meaningful efforts to communicate with the taxpayer.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount.
Buy Now: All 200+ GSTAT Judgements Till November 2026 | Comprehensive E-Magazine
The petitioner/assessee challenged an assessment order dated December 26, 2025, passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kotturpuram Assessment Circle, under Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017.
According to the petitioner, the notices and communications had been uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” section of the GST common portal. She maintained that she was unaware of these communications and, consequently, could not submit her reply within the stipulated time.
The petitioner further submitted that the assessment order had been passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing. She sought a fresh opportunity to explain her position and produce supporting documents.
During the proceedings, her counsel voluntarily offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount. An endorsement recording this willingness was also made in the Court bundle.
The Additional Government Pleader appearing for the tax authorities submitted that the notices had been uploaded on the GST portal, but the petitioner had failed to respond.
However, the department acknowledged that no opportunity of personal hearing had been provided before the assessment order was passed. It requested that the matter be remitted to the assessing authority, subject to payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount.
With the consent of both parties, the High Court took up the writ petition for disposal at the admission stage.
The High Court noted that the show cause notice had been uploaded on the GST portal and that the petitioner claimed to have been unaware of it. The assessment order subsequently confirmed the proposals in the notice without affording her an opportunity of personal hearing.
The Court expressly recognised that uploading a notice on the portal constitutes sufficient service. Nevertheless, it held that an officer issuing repeated reminders despite receiving no response should apply their mind and explore other modes of service prescribed under Section 169.
Otherwise, the Court observed, the exercise would amount to “fulfilling the empty formalities.”
The Court explained that merely completing procedural formalities and passing an ex parte order would serve no useful purpose. Such an approach could lead to multiple rounds of litigation, consuming the time of the assessing officer, appellate authority or tribunal, and the High Court.
The High Court held that when a taxpayer does not respond to a notice sent through a particular mode, the officer should explore the possibility of serving it through another mode prescribed under Section 169(1).
The Court expressed a preference for registered post with acknowledgment due, or RPAD, to achieve effective communication.
On the facts of the case, it found a lack of effort in using the available means to serve the notices and orders effectively on the petitioner.
The ruling does not invalidate service through the GST portal. Its emphasis is that officers should make further efforts through other statutory modes when portal notices repeatedly receive no response, instead of proceeding mechanically to an adverse order.
Considering the petitioner’s willingness to pay a portion of the disputed tax, the High Court conditionally set aside the assessment order dated December 26, 2025, and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for fresh consideration.
The Court directed the petitioner to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks from receipt of a copy of its order.
Crucially, it specified that the setting aside of the assessment order would take effect only from the date of payment of that amount.
The petitioner must thereafter submit her reply or objections, along with the required supporting documents, if any, within three weeks from the date of payment.
Upon receiving the petitioner’s reply, the assessing authority must consider it and issue a notice allowing 14 clear days before the personal hearing.
The authority must then hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
The High Court did not determine the correctness of the underlying tax demand. Its directions provide a further opportunity for the petitioner to contest the assessment before the tax authority.
The writ petition was disposed of without an order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
