Portal Upload Alone Is Not "Effective Service" if Taxpayer Is Unresponsive

Portal Upload Alone Is Not “Effective Service” if Taxpayer Is Unresponsive

1. The Core Dispute: Digital “Empty Formalities” vs. Natural Justice

The tax authorities issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequent reminders solely by uploading them to the GST portal. Because the petitioner did not respond to these digital notifications, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex parte assessment order confirming all tax proposals without conducting a personal hearing.

Petitioner’s Stand: Claimed total unawareness of the proceedings because no physical notice was served. They argued that “portal-only” service resulted in an ex parte order that violated the principles of natural justice.
Revenue’s Stand: Argued that under Section 169(1)(d), making a notice available on the common portal is a legally recognized and sufficient mode of service.

2. Legal Analysis: The “Stepwise” Responsibility of the Officer

The Madras High Court scrutinized the application of Section 169 (Service of Notice) and Section 75 (General Provisions for Tax Determination).

I. Beyond the “Common Portal” (Section 169)

While the court acknowledged that a portal upload is a valid mode of service, it held that it cannot be used as a mechanical shield to pass ex parte orders.

The Ruling: When a taxpayer fails to respond to a portal notice, the officer has a duty to apply their mind and explore alternative modes under Section 169(1), such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) or email.
“Empty Formality”: Confining service to portal uploads when there is no response amounts to an “empty formality” that leads to unnecessary litigation and wastes judicial time.

II. The Mandatory Personal Hearing (Section 75)

Under Section 75(4), a personal hearing is mandatory if an adverse decision is contemplated, regardless of whether the taxpayer requested it.

The Finding: Passing a final order based only on a non-response to a portal-uploaded SCN violates the statutory mandate for a fair hearing.

3. Final Ruling: Conditional Remand for Fresh Adjudication

The Court set aside the assessment order and the order rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds, opting for a path of procedural fairness.

Verdict: Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Condition: The petitioner was directed to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks as a show of bona fide intent.
Remand Procedure:
1. Upon payment, the petitioner must file a reply within three weeks.
2. The AO must issue a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing.
3. A fresh, reasoned order must be passed on the merits of the case.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Monitor the “Additional” Tab: Many notices are uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, which often doesn’t trigger SMS or email alerts. Check this weekly.
Update Contact Info: Ensure your registered email and mobile number are current to receive digital notifications.
RPAD as a Shield: If you receive an ex parte order without a physical notice or hearing, use this precedent to argue that the officer failed to ensure “effective service” under Section 169.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Cmkr Ganesan and Bros

Deputy Commissioner (CT)GST, Madurai^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P.(MD)No. 2645 of 2026
W.M.P(MD)Nos. 2223 & 2228 of 2026

FEBRUARY 3, 2026

R. Karunanidhi for the Appellant. R.Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 08.10.2024 and the consequential appeal rejection order dated 26.11.2025 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. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, however, the same was rejected by the 1^st respondent, vide rejection order dated 26.11.2025, on the aspect of limitation. 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 assessment 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 assessment order dated 08.10.2024 and the consequential appeal rejection order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned assessment order dated 08.10.2024 and the consequential rejection order dated 26.11.2025 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 petitions are also closed.