Quashing of Ex Parte Assessment Where Notice Uploaded on Portal Went Unnoticed; Mandating Use of Alternative Service Modes

1. The Core Dispute: Uploading vs. Effective Communication

The Revenue authorities issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequent reminders solely by uploading them on the GST Common Portal. Because the petitioner was unaware of these digital uploads, no reply was filed, and no appearance was made for a hearing.

Revenue’s Stand: Under Section 169(1)(d), making a notice “available on the common portal” is a legally recognized and sufficient mode of service. Since the petitioner failed to check the portal, the ex-parte order was justified.
Assessee’s Stand: Mere portal upload without an accompanying email alert or physical service results in the taxpayer being “blind” to the proceedings. Passing an adverse order without ensuring the taxpayer actually received the notice violates the Principles of Natural Justice and Section 75(4) of the Act.

2. Legal Analysis: Prudence Beyond the Portal

The High Court balanced the technological mandate of the GST regime with the fundamental right of a taxpayer to be heard.

I. Section 169: Alternative Statutory Modes

The Court observed that while Section 169(1) lists the portal as a valid mode, the list is not intended to allow the department to ignore the “most effective” mode when there is clearly a lack of engagement.

Effective Service: The Court held that if a taxpayer does not respond to a portal-based notice, the officer should not proceed blindly. Instead, they should explore alternative modes under Section 169(1), such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), to secure effective service.

II. The “Empty Formality” Doctrine

Under Section 75(4), a personal hearing is mandatory before any adverse decision is taken.

The Ruling: Compliance confined only to portal uploads, especially when reminders evoke no response, amounts to an “empty formality.” Such a practice serves no useful purpose and only paves the way for a multiplicity of litigation in higher courts.

3. Final Verdict: Conditional Remand

The High Court set aside the ex-parte assessment order and the order of the Appellate Authority to give the taxpayer a meaningful opportunity to defend the case.

Verdict: The impugned assessment order was quashed and set aside.
Condition for Remand: The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount as a show of good faith.
Direction to Officer: The matter is remitted for fresh consideration. The officer must provide 14 days of clear notice and a personal hearing before passing a fresh order.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Monitor the “Additional Notices” Tab: Notices are often uploaded under the “User Services > View Additional Notices and Orders” tab rather than the main dashboard. It is critical to check this section weekly.
Update Contact Details: Ensure your registered email and mobile number are active; the law assumes you are receiving the automated alerts sent to these details.
Right to Physical Notice: If you missed a portal notice and received an adverse order, this ruling provides a strong precedent to seek a remand by arguing that the department should have attempted physical service (RPAD) once the digital notice went unacknowledged.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Sri Velmurgan Starch Industries

State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer, Thuraiyur ^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P.(MD) No. 1979 of 2026
W.M.P(MD) Nos. 1564 & 1565 of 2026

JANUARY 27, 2026

N. Prasad for the Petitioner. R.Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent.

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

5. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matters back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.

9. 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.

10. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.

11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned order dated 30.07.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1^st respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount

(ii)

The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.

(iii)

On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.