Portal Service vs. Effective Service: Madras High Court Mandates Multi-Mode Communication

The Legal Issue

The central question is whether the tax authorities satisfy the requirements of Natural Justice and Section 169 by exclusively uploading notices to the GST portal when a taxpayer fails to respond. The Court evaluated whether “service” is a mere technical formality or if it must be “effective” enough to ensure the taxpayer is actually aware of the proceedings.

Facts Of Case

The Process: The respondent authority issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and multiple reminders regarding an assessment.
The Service: All communications were exclusively uploaded to the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST common portal.
The Default: The petitioner was unaware of these digital uploads and failed to file a reply or attend a personal hearing.
The Result: The authority passed an ex parte assessment order, confirming all tax proposals solely because the petitioner did not contest the portal-based notice.
The Challenge: The petitioner moved the High Court, arguing they were never effectively served and were denied a fair opportunity to be heard.

The Decision

The Madras High Court (2025/2026) ruled in favour of the assessee, setting aside the order and remanding the case:

“Empty Formality” Doctrine: The Court held that if a taxpayer does not respond to repeated portal reminders, the officer cannot simply proceed ex parte. Doing so is merely “fulfilling empty formalities” and does not constitute effective service.
Duty to Apply Mind: The officer is expected to “apply his/her mind” to the lack of response and explore alternative modes of service prescribed under Section 169(1), such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) or email.
Object of the Act: The primary goal of the GST Act is to ensure fair adjudication. The Court observed that failing to try other modes of service only leads to a “multiplicity of litigations” (Writ Petitions), which serves no useful purpose for the Revenue.
RPAD as Preferred Mode: The Court specifically suggested that RPAD is a preferred mode when portal service fails to elicit a response, as it provides a tangible record of receipt.
Outcome: The impugned assessment order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after providing a proper opportunity for a personal hearing.

Key Takeaways

Digital “Blind Spots”: This ruling highlights that while portal service is legally valid, it is not “absolute.” If you can prove you genuinely missed the portal notification and the department made no other attempt to reach you (via post or phone), you have strong grounds to challenge an ex parte order.
Officer’s Responsibility: The burden is shifting onto tax officers to ensure that communication is actually delivered before they penalize a taxpayer for non-response.
Remand Conditions: In many such cases, High Courts may require the taxpayer to deposit a portion of the disputed tax (usually 10% to 25%) as a condition for the fresh hearing to ensure bona fides.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Praveen Constructions

State Tax Officer, Tirunelveli ^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P.(MD) Nos. 3342 to 3347 of 2026
W.M.P(MD)Nos. 2759 to 2770 of 2026

FEBRUARY 6, 2026

S. Sathyanarayanan for the Petitioner. R. Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the 6 impugned orders dated 06.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 28.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 30.01.2025 & 30.01.2025 passed by the respondent.

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

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, 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 orders 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, in each case, 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 orders.

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 orders. 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 cases 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, in each case, to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside all the 6 impugned orders dated 06.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 28.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 30.01.2025 & 30.01.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned orders dated 06.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 28.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 30.01.2025 & 30.01.2025 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, in each case, 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, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.