Mechanical GST Portal Notices Waste Judicial Time, Lead to Avoidable Litigation: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court while directing the Goods and Service Tax (GST) officers to explore the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act apart from uploading the notice on the portal and held that the mechanical GST portal notices waste judicial time, leading to avoidable litigation. The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has observed that no doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well. The petitioner/assessee challenged an assessment order dated 29 October 2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Tuticorin 3 Circle, for the assessment year 2018–19. The grievance was that although show cause notices were uploaded on the GST common portal, the petitioner was unaware of them and consequently failed to file replies within time. As a result, the assessment order was passed ex parte, confirming the proposals in the show cause notice without affording any opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner submitted that all communications were uploaded only on the GST portal. No physical or alternative mode of service was adopted. The petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and hence could not respond. The assessment order violated principles of natural justice. To demonstrate bona fides, the petitioner also expressed willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount if an opportunity was granted to contest the case on merits. The Additional Government Pleader acknowledged that notices were uploaded on the GST portal. No personal hearing was granted prior to passing the impugned order. The State fairly suggested that the matter could be remanded, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, as agreed. The Court made strong observations on the manner in which GST notices are served. While recognising that portal upload is a valid mode of service, the Court held that “Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and will only pave the way for multiplicity of litigations.” Justice Ramasamy emphasised that when repeated portal notices evoke no response, the officer is duty-bound to explore other modes of service prescribed under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD), to ensure effective communication. The Court warned that failure to do so wastes not only departmental time but also that of appellate authorities and constitutional courts. Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the assessment order dated 29.10.2024, remanded the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration, and made the relief conditional upon payment of 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks The Court further directed that the petitioner must file replies and documents within three weeks of payment. The department must issue a 14-day clear notice fixing personal hearing. Fresh orders must be passed on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously. Case Details Case Title: Kodeeswaran Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer -2 Case No.: W.P.(MD)No.2266 of 2026 & W.M.P(MD)Nos.1780 & 1781 of 2026 Date: 30.01.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: J. Sivaram Counsel For Respondent: R.Suresh Kumar, AGP Click Here To Read Order Read More: DGGI Inquiry U/s 70 Not Equal to Proceedings or Arrest: Delhi High Court Refuses to Quash GST Summons

Mechanical GST Portal Notices Waste Judicial Time, Lead to Avoidable Litigation: Madras High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 27 May, 2026

Supreme Court Acquits KSRTC Driver, Says Following Conductor’s Signal Cannot Amount to Criminal Negligence

Delay in Legal Notice Alone Can’t Defeat Buyer’s Rights: Supreme Court Restores Specific Performance Decree

Promotions Must Follow Rules Existing at Time of Consideration, Not When Vacancies Arose: Supreme Court

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 27 May, 2026

Supreme Court Acquits KSRTC Driver, Says Following Conductor’s Signal Cannot Amount to Criminal Negligence

Delay in Legal Notice Alone Can’t Defeat Buyer’s Rights: Supreme Court Restores Specific Performance Decree

About us

Company

Categories