Landmark Ruling: Portal-Only Notice is Not "Effective Service" if Taxpayer Doesn't Respond

Landmark Ruling: Portal-Only Notice is Not “Effective Service” if Taxpayer Doesn’t Respond

1. The Core Dispute: Technical Compliance vs. Substantive Justice

The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) by uploading it to the GST portal. When the assessee failed to respond, the officer sent repeated reminders—but only through the same digital mode. Eventually, an assessment order was passed confirming the tax proposals without a personal hearing.

Assessee’s Stand: They were completely unaware of the notice as it was only on the portal. No physical copy or email was provided, leading to a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.
Revenue’s Stand: Under Section 169, uploading a notice on the common portal is a valid mode of service. Therefore, they argued that the service was legally complete.

2. The Legal Ruling: Duty to Explore Alternative Modes

The High Court took a critical view of the “automated” approach to tax administration. While digital service is legal, it must be effective.

I. Beyond “Empty Formalities”

The Court held that if an officer sees zero response from a taxpayer despite repeated digital reminders, they must “apply their mind.” Simply sending reminders through a mode that clearly isn’t reaching the taxpayer is merely fulfilling an empty formality.

II. Mandatory Recourse to Section 169(1)

The law provides several modes of service. The Court emphasized that the Proper Officer should have explored other options under Section 169(1), specifically:

Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD): This is considered a superior mode of service when digital communication fails, as it provides a physical record of delivery.
Email or Hand Delivery: To ensure the taxpayer is actually notified.

III. Mandatory Personal Hearing (Section 75(4))

The Court reiterated that an assessment order confirming a tax demand is an adverse order. Under Section 75(4), such an order cannot be passed without affording a personal hearing, even if the taxpayer hasn’t specifically requested one in writing.

3. Final Order and Direction

The High Court found that there was a fundamental “lack of opportunity” provided to the assessee.

Outcome: The impugned assessment order was quashed and set aside.
Remand: The matter was sent back to the adjudicating authority.
Direction: The authority must now provide a fresh opportunity for the assessee to file a reply and conduct a personal hearing before passing a new order.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

The “Portal-Only” Defense: If you have missed an order because it was buried in the portal (especially in the “Additional Notices” tab) and received no physical mail or email alerts, this judgment serves as a strong precedent to challenge the order in a Writ Petition.
Update Your Credentials: Ensure your Email ID and Mobile Number on the GST portal are current. While the court was lenient here, the department often argues that “portal service” is sufficient if your contact details are verified.
Check Regularly: Despite this favorable ruling, it is best practice to check the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab at least once a month to avoid the stress of litigation.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Tvl. Sri Samy Agencies

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P.(MD) No. 36775 of 2025
W.M.P. (MD) No. 29227 of 2025

JANUARY 2, 2026

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 25.10.2024 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 25.10.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned order dated 25.10.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2^nd 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 petition is also closed.