Madras High Court: Portal Notice Valid but Personal Hearing Mandatory Before Passing Ex Parte GST Order.

Facts of the Case

The Notice: The Department uploaded the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequent reminders solely on the “View Additional Notices” tab of the GST Portal.
The Default: The Petitioner did not see the notices, failed to file a reply, and did not attend any hearing.
The Order: An ex parte assessment order was passed, confirming the tax proposals in the SCN without the Petitioner ever having a chance to present their case.
The Challenge: The Petitioner moved the High Court via a Writ Petition, arguing that they were unaware of the proceedings and that the denial of a personal hearing violated the Principles of Natural Justice.

The Judicial Verdict

The High Court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, establishing two critical points of law:

1. The “Empty Formality” Doctrine

The Court acknowledged that under Section 169, uploading on the portal is a valid mode of service. However, it held that if there is zero response from the taxpayer, the Department should not blindly proceed to an ex parte order. To ensure effective service, the authority should apply its mind and potentially explore other modes (like registered post or email) rather than letting the process become an “empty formality.”

2. Mandatory Personal Hearing (Section 75)

The Court reiterated that under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, a personal hearing is mandatory if an adverse decision is contemplated against the taxpayer, even if the taxpayer has not specifically requested one or has failed to file a reply. An order passed without a hearing is “vitiated” (legally defective).

3. Conditional Remand

To balance the interest of the Revenue, the Court allowed the Petitioner a “second innings” subject to a pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax. This ensures the taxpayer’s bona fides while restoring their right to be heard.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Check the “Hidden” Tabs: GST notices often appear in the “View Additional Notices/Orders” sub-menu, not just the main dashboard. Ignorance of the portal is generally not an excuse in the eyes of the law.
Right to a Hearing: Even if you miss the deadline to file a written reply, the Department cannot legally pass a demand order against you without offering a date for a personal hearing.
The 25% Rule: If you are seeking to quash an ex parte order through a Writ Petition because you missed portal notices, be prepared for the Court to ask for a significant pre-deposit (usually 10% to 25%) as a condition for reopening the assessment.
Remand Opportunity: Use the remand period to file a comprehensive reply. The Department is now legally bound to consider your submissions and pass a “speaking order” (an order with reasons).

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Tvl. SPR Enterprises

Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Madurai^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P. (MD) No. 4195 of 2026
W.M.P. (MD). No. 3488 of 2026

FEBRUARY 13, 2026

A. Satheesh Murugan for the Petitioner. R.Suresh Kumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 and its consequential summary order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the second respondent.

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondents 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 second respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

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

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents 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 matter back to the respondents, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 and its consequential summary order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the second respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned order dated 16.12.2024 and its consequential summary order dated 19.12.2024 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 and its consequential summary order dated 19.12.2024 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 respondents 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.

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