GST assessment set aside; Officer must use alternative service modes if portal upload gets no response

Issue

Whether an ex parte GST assessment order is valid when the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was served solely by uploading it to the GST portal without any response from the taxpayer, or if the Assessing Officer is required to use alternative modes of service (like Registered Post) under Section 169 to ensure principles of natural justice are met.

Facts

Dispute: The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order demanding tax/ITC, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice.
Mode of Service: The Department served the SCN and subsequent reminders exclusively by uploading them to the GST portal.
Non-Participation: The petitioner did not file a reply or attend the hearing, citing unawareness of the notices uploaded on the portal.
Impugned Order: Due to the lack of response, the Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order confirming the SCN proposals without affording a personal hearing.
Petitioner’s Plea: The petitioner contended that the service was defective (“empty formality”) and that they were denied a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

Decision

Portal Service is Valid but Limited: The Court noted that while uploading to the portal is a legally valid mode of service, it is not always sufficient to prove effective communication.
Duty to Ensure Service: When repeated reminders on the portal elicited no response, the proper course of action for the officer was to verify if the taxpayer was actually aware. The officer ought to have explored alternative modes of service prescribed under Section 169, specifically Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD).
Violation of Natural Justice: The Court held that proceeding ex parte without ensuring the assessee was informed or granting a personal hearing vitiated the order. The proceedings were deemed to have fulfilled only “empty formalities.”
Order Quashed: The impugned assessment order was set aside.
Conditional Remand: The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Takeaways

Beyond Digital Compliance: Tax officers cannot rely solely on portal uploads if the taxpayer stays silent. A lack of response should trigger an attempt at physical service (RPAD) to ensure the notice was actually received.
Section 169 Hierarchy: While Section 169 lists various methods of service, the goal is effective service. If one mode fails (demonstrated by non-response), another should be attempted before passing an adverse order.
Personal Hearing is Mandatory: An order passed without a specific opportunity for a personal hearing is legally fragile and liable to be quashed.
Cost of Negligence: Taxpayers who ignore the portal may still get a second chance, but often at a cost—in this case, a mandatory pre-deposit of 25% of the tax to reopen the case.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Tvl. Enfive Systems (P.) Ltd.

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P. (MD) No. 36252 of 2025
W.M.P. (MD) No. 28855 of 2025

DECEMBER 18, 2025

Rooban B for the Petitioner. R.Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the 2^nd 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 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 matter 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 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 21.03.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned order dated 21.03.2024 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.