Inefficacy of Exclusive Portal-Based Notice Service

1. The Core Issue: Procedural Formality vs. Effective Communication

The petitioner challenged an ex parte assessment order on the grounds that the department failed to provide actual notice or a personal hearing. All communications, including the Show Cause Notice (SCN), were exclusively uploaded to the GST Common Portal.

Taxpayer’s Stand: Claimed total ignorance of the proceedings as no physical notice (RPAD) or email alert was received. The absence of a personal hearing further violated the mandatory requirements of Section 75(4).
Revenue’s Stand: Argued that under Section 169(1)(d), making a notice available on the common portal is a statutorily recognized mode of service, and thus the assessment was valid.

2. Legal Analysis: The Hierarchy of Service Modes

The Court addressed whether “valid service” in a technical sense satisfies the “effective service” required for natural justice.

I. Section 169: Beyond the Portal

While Section 169 lists six modes of service (including portal upload), the Court held that these modes should not be applied mechanically.

The Ruling: If a taxpayer fails to respond to a portal notice, the Assessing Officer (AO) has a duty to apply their mind and explore alternate modes such as Registered Post (RPAD) or personal delivery.
“Empty Formality”: Simply uploading a notice and passing an order when the taxpayer remains unresponsive is an “empty formality” that defeats the objective of the law and invites unnecessary litigation.

II. Mandatory Personal Hearing (Section 75)

Under Section 75(4), an opportunity for a hearing is obligatory whenever an adverse decision is contemplated, regardless of whether the taxpayer specifically requests it in writing.

The Finding: Passing an ex parte order without ensuring the taxpayer was heard—especially when the SCN was only on the portal—vitiates the entire assessment process.

3. Final Ruling: Quashed and Remanded

The Court emphasized that natural justice is an integral part of the GST regime and cannot be sacrificed for digital convenience.

Verdict: The impugned assessment and consequential orders were set aside.
Remand Conditions: 1. The taxpayer must deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 4 weeks.
2. Upon payment, the taxpayer may file a detailed response within 3 weeks.
3. The AO must provide a 14-day notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh, reasoned order.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Check “Additional” Tabs: Many SCNs are hidden in the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab, which does not always trigger email/SMS alerts.
Update Contact Details: Ensure your registered email and mobile number are current. Courts treat these as reliable modes of service, making it harder to claim ignorance.
Writ Jurisdiction for Natural Justice: If an order is passed without a personal hearing or proper service, you can bypass the standard appeal route and approach the High Court under Article 226 to have the order quashed as a violation of natural justice.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

T. Ashok Kumar Contractor

Deputy State Tax Officer^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P. (MD) No. 2697 of 2026
W.M.P (MD) No. 2290 of 2026

FEBRUARY 2, 2026

A. Satheesh Murugan for the Petitioner. R.Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the 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 the respondent had already recovered 25% of the disputed tax amount from the petitioner. 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.

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 the respondent had already recovered 25% of the disputed tax amount from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned order dated 10.02.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.

(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 receipt of a copy of this order.

(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 petition is also closed.