Exclusive Reliance on Portal Uploads for Service of Notice Without Personal Hearing Violates Principles of Natural Justice

Issue

Whether an assessment order is legally sustainable when the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was served exclusively via the GST portal, resulting in no reply from the taxpayer and an ex-parte order passed without a personal hearing.

Facts

The Notice: The Department issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner solely by uploading it to the “View Additional Notices” section of the GST portal.
Lack of Knowledge: The petitioner asserted they were unaware of the SCN and therefore failed to file a reply or attend any proceedings.
The Order: An ex-parte assessment order was passed, confirming the tax proposals in the SCN without granting the petitioner a mandatory personal hearing.
The Challenge: The petitioner filed a writ petition arguing that the lack of effective service and the absence of a hearing constituted a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

Decision

Portal Service vs. Effective Service: The Court acknowledged that while uploading to the portal is a valid mode of service under Section 169, it should not be the only mode when the taxpayer fails to respond.
Requirement for Alternative Modes: The Court held that if no response is received following a portal upload, the Assessing Officer (AO) should explore other modes listed under Section 169(1), preferably Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), to ensure the notice actually reaches the taxpayer.
Breach of Section 75: Passing an adverse order without a personal hearing is a direct violation of Section 75(4). The ex-parte nature of the assessment, combined with the lack of effective notice, vitiated the entire proceeding.
Remand with Conditions: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. However, this was made subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax.
Outcome: Ruled in favor of the assessee (Matter remanded).

Key Takeaways

Proactive Monitoring: Taxpayers must regularly check the “Services > User Services > View Additional Notices/Orders” tab, as the primary dashboard does not always show all SCNs.
The “Reasonable Effort” Doctrine: Revenue authorities are expected to make a reasonable effort to inform the taxpayer. If digital service fails to elicit a response, physical service is the expected secondary step.
Mandatory Hearing: A personal hearing is a statutory right under GST law whenever an adverse tax demand or penalty is contemplated; its absence is usually enough to get an order quashed in a High Court.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

S.M.A. Siddique Steels

State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P. (MD) No. 3373 of 2026
W.M.P (MD) Nos. 2787 & 2789 of 2026

FEBRUARY 6, 2026

J.Sankarapandian for the Petitioner. R.Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the respondent.

2. Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

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 13.03.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned order dated 13.03.2025 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.