Portal Service is Valid but Not Always "Effective": Madras High Court Orders Remand

Portal Service is Valid but Not Always “Effective”: Madras High Court Orders Remand

The Legal Issue

The central legal question is whether tax authorities satisfy the principles of Natural Justice by solely uploading notices to the GST portal when a taxpayer remains unresponsive. The Court examined if “effective service” under Section 169 requires exploring alternative modes, such as physical delivery or Registered Post (RPAD), before passing an ex parte order.

Facts Of Case

The Assessment: The respondent issued an assessment order dated December 30, 2022, following a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and multiple reminders.
Service Method: All communications, including the SCN, were exclusively uploaded to the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal.
The Default: The petitioner (Tvl. Enfive Systems Private Limited) claimed they had no knowledge of these uploads, never received the original SCN, and thus failed to file a reply or attend a personal hearing.
The Outcome: An ex parte order was passed, confirming all proposals in the SCN without the petitioner’s participation.

The Decision

The Madras High Court (2025/2026) set aside the assessment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration:

Portal Upload vs. Mindful Service: While uploading to the portal is a valid mode under Section 169(1)(d), the Court held it is not always “effective.” If reminders go unanswered, the officer must “apply their mind” and use other prescribed modes like RPAD to ensure the taxpayer is actually informed.
Empty Formality: Proceeding ex parte purely on portal uploads—without trying to reach the taxpayer through alternative channels—amounts to an “empty formality” that triggers unnecessary litigation.
Conditional Remand: The Court remitted the matter subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks.
Outcome: In favour of the assessee / Matter Remanded.

Key Takeaways

Active Monitoring Required: Taxpayers must regularly check the “Additional Notices” tab, as many notices do not appear on the main dashboard.
Alternative Service is a Right: This ruling establishes that if you miss a portal notice, you can challenge the resulting order if the department failed to try other modes like email or post.
The “25% Rule”: In many “Natural Justice” remand cases, Madras HC requires a partial deposit (usually 10%–25%) to test the bona fides of the taxpayer before granting a fresh hearing.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

NPS Associates

Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P. (MD) No. 3115 of 2026
W.M.P (MD) Nos. 2571 & 2573 of 2026

FEBRUARY 5, 2026

Sudalai Muthu N. for the Petitioner. R. Gowri Shankar for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the respondent.

2. Mr. R. Gowri Shankar, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

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 30.12.2022 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned order dated 30.12.2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 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.