Portal Uploading is Valid, but Officers Must Use Alternate Modes (like RPAD) if the Taxpayer Does Not Respond.

Facts

The Notice: The GST Department uploaded a Show Cause Notice (SCN) only on the GST Portal.
The Taxpayer’s Stand: The Petitioner claimed they had no knowledge of the notice as it was not served through any other mode (like email or physical post). Consequently, no reply was filed.
The Action: Since no response was received, the Proper Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order and a summary order without providing a personal hearing.
The Challenge: The Petitioner approached the Court, arguing that the service was ineffective and their right to a fair hearing (Natural Justice) was violated.

Decision

The Court ruled in favor of the Assessee (subject to conditions), remanding the matter based on the following legal reasoning:

Portal Upload vs. Effective Service: While Section 169(1)(d) recognizes “making it available on the common portal” as a valid mode of service, the Court held that if the taxpayer fails to respond, the officer should not simply proceed to an ex-parte order.
Duty to Explore Other Modes: To ensure the process isn’t a mere “empty formality,” the officer ought to explore other statutory modes—preferably Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD)—to ensure the taxpayer is actually aware of the proceedings.
Mandatory Personal Hearing: Under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, a personal hearing is mandatory if an adverse decision is contemplated against the taxpayer, even if they haven’t specifically requested one. Passing an order without a hearing when the notice itself wasn’t effectively served vitiates the order.
Conditional Remand: To balance the interest of the Revenue, the Court set aside the orders but directed the Petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for the matter to be reconsidered with a fresh personal hearing.

Key Takeaways

Check the “View Additional Notices” Tab: Many taxpayers miss notices because they only check the main dashboard. Courts are increasingly strict, but this ruling offers a “safety net” if the Department relied solely on the portal without backup communication.
Natural Justice is Supreme: An assessment order passed without a personal hearing is fundamentally flawed (voidable) if the taxpayer was never effectively reached.
Section 169 Hierarchy: While there is no strict “order” in Section 169, the spirit of the law requires the Department to act reasonably to secure the taxpayer’s presence before creating a massive tax demand.
The “25% Rule”: In writ petitions against ex-parte orders, Courts often impose a “pre-deposit” (usually 10% to 25%) to test the bona fides of the taxpayer before granting a second chance.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Tvl. Kavitha Litho Press

Deputy State Tax Officer, Tuticorin^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P.(MD)No. 3722 of 2026
W.M.P(MD)No. 3024 of 2026

FEBRUARY 11, 2026

Raja.Karthikeyan for the Petitioner. R. Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 and the summary order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the respondents.

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 now, 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 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 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 now, 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 29.12.2023 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned order dated 29.12.2023 and the summary order dated 06.12.2024 are 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 petition is also closed.