The Madras High Court has held that GST officers should explore alternative modes of serving notices when a taxpayer does not respond to communications uploaded on the GST portal, observing that repeated portal uploads without efforts to ensure effective service can become an exercise in “empty formalities.”
The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy set aside an assessment order against the assessee subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount, and directed the tax authority to reconsider the matter after receiving the taxpayer’s objections and providing a personal hearing.
BUY NOW: Must Cite Cases Laws In GST Notices via Common Portal Related Disputes
The bench recognises that uploading notices on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service. However, the Court emphasised that officers should apply their minds when notices and reminders remain unanswered and explore other modes available under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, preferably Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD).
The petitioner/assessee approached the Court challenging an assessment order dated April 7, 2026, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Tondiarpet Assessment Circle, Chennai. The petition also challenged the corresponding summary order issued in Form GST DRC-07.
The taxpayer submitted that all notices and communications had been uploaded on the GST common portal. Since it had failed to check the portal, it remained unaware of the proceedings and could not submit its reply within the prescribed time.
According to the taxpayer, the authority subsequently passed the assessment order without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. It therefore sought the setting aside of the order and a fresh opportunity to present its case.
Counsel for the taxpayer informed the Court that the business was ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for reconsideration.
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 provided. However, the department’s counsel acknowledged that no personal hearing had been granted before the assessment order was passed and requested a remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
Examining the record, the Court noted that the show cause notice had been uploaded on the GST portal. The taxpayer claimed that it was unaware of the notice and that the original notice had not been furnished to it.
The Court found that the assessment order had confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice without affording the taxpayer an opportunity for a personal hearing.
While expressly recognising the sufficiency of service through portal uploads, the Court observed that an officer sending repeated reminders despite receiving no response should consider using other legally recognised modes of service.
The Court reasoned that mechanically completing procedural formalities and passing an ex parte order would not serve a useful purpose. Such an approach could instead generate multiple rounds of litigation, consuming the time of the assessing officer, appellate authorities, tribunals and the Court.
It consequently directed that, where a taxpayer does not respond to a notice sent through a particular mode, the issuing officer should explore other modes prescribed under Section 169(1), preferably RPAD. In the present case, the Court found insufficient effort to explore the available means of effectively serving notices and orders.
The Court set aside the April 7, 2026 assessment order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the taxpayer paying 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks from receiving a copy of the Court’s order.
Crucially, the Court specified that the setting aside of the assessment order would take effect only from the date of that payment.
The taxpayer was directed to submit its reply or objections, together with any supporting documents, within three weeks from the payment date.
Upon receiving the reply, the tax authority must consider it and issue a clear 14-day notice fixing the date of the personal hearing. The authority must then hear the taxpayer and pass an appropriate order on the merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
The writ petition was disposed of without 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.
Read More: GST Demand Summary Can’t Include Tax Already Adjusted Against Payments: Allahabad HC
