The Madras High Court has held that although uploading a notice on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service, tax officers should explore other statutory modes of communication when a taxpayer repeatedly fails to respond.
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has set aside two assessment orders passed without a personal hearing and directed fresh consideration of the matters and observed that repeatedly uploading communications without examining whether another permissible mode could effectively reach the taxpayer risks reducing the process to an empty formality. It emphasised that such an approach can result in avoidable litigation and consume the time of tax officers, appellate authorities, tribunals and courts.
BUY NOW: Must Cite Cases Laws In GST Notices via Common Portal Related Disputes
The dispute concerned two orders dated April 20, 2026, issued in Form GST DRC-07 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The orders related to financial years 2022–23 and 2023–24.
The taxpayer challenged the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking their quashing and fresh consideration after an opportunity to submit supporting documents and participate in a hearing.
The taxpayer submitted that all notices and communications had been uploaded on the GST common portal. Since the taxpayer had failed to view the portal, it remained unaware of the notices and did not submit replies within the prescribed time.
According to the taxpayer, the department subsequently passed the assessment orders without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing.
The taxpayer’s counsel also submitted that the entire disputed tax amount had already been paid. On that basis, the taxpayer requested another opportunity to present its case before the assessing authority.
The department maintained that the notices had been uploaded on the GST portal and that the taxpayer had failed to avail itself of the opportunity to respond.
However, the Government Advocate admitted that no opportunity for a personal hearing had been provided before the impugned orders were passed. The department accordingly requested that the matters be remitted to the assessing authority.
With the consent of the parties, the Court took up the writ petitions for disposal at the admission stage.
The central issue before the Court concerned the adequacy of the steps taken to communicate the proceedings when portal notices remained unanswered, along with the absence of a personal hearing before the assessments were finalised.
The Court expressly recognised that uploading a notice on the portal constitutes sufficient service. Its observations therefore did not invalidate portal-based service as a statutory mode of communication.
However, the court held that an officer sending repeated reminders without receiving a response should apply their mind and explore other modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act.
The Court observed that merely completing formal steps and proceeding to pass an ex parte order would serve little useful purpose if the process did not effectively communicate the proceedings to the taxpayer.
It also explained the wider consequence of such an approach: orders passed after ineffective communication could lead to multiple rounds of litigation, wasting administrative and judicial time.
The Court stated that when a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through a particular mode, the issuing officer should explore the possibility of using another mode permitted under Section 169(1).
It specifically preferred service through registered post with acknowledgment due, commonly referred to as RPAD, as an alternative that could help achieve effective communication.
Applying this reasoning to the case, the Court found that the department had not made sufficient efforts to explore the available means of effectively serving notices and orders on the taxpayer.
The Court also noted that the assessment orders had confirmed the proposals in the show cause notices without affording the taxpayer an opportunity for a personal hearing.
Taking into account the circumstances and the submission that the entire disputed tax amount had already been paid, the Court set aside both orders dated April 20, 2026, and remanded the matters to the assessing authority for fresh consideration.
The taxpayer was directed to submit its replies or objections, together with the necessary supporting documents, within three weeks from receiving a copy of the Court’s order.
After receiving those submissions, the assessing authority must consider them and issue a notice providing 14 clear days before the scheduled personal hearing.
The authority must thereafter hear the taxpayer and pass appropriate orders on the merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.Â
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.
