Effective Service vs. Portal Formalities: Madras High Court Rebukes "Blind" Ex Parte Orders

Effective Service vs. Portal Formalities: Madras High Court Rebukes “Blind” Ex Parte Orders

The Legal Issue

The core question is whether “service” under Section 169 of the GST Act is fulfilled merely by uploading a notice to the portal, or if the principles of Natural Justice require the Department to use alternative methods when a taxpayer remains unresponsive. The Court examined if proceeding ex parte based solely on digital uploads constitutes an “empty formality.”

Facts Of Case

The Process: The tax authority issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and multiple reminders via the GST portal.
The Default: The petitioner did not respond because they were unaware of the notices in the “View Additional Notices” tab.
The Order: Without any further attempts to reach the petitioner, the officer passed an ex parte assessment order confirming the tax proposals.
The Contention: The petitioner argued that the lack of a personal hearing and the failure to serve notice through a tangible mode (like post or email) violated Section 75(4) of the Act.

The Decision

The Madras High Court (2026) ruled in favour of the assessee, setting aside the order and remanding the matter:

Beyond “Empty Formalities”: While portal service is legally “sufficient” under the letter of the law, the Court held that it is not necessarily “effective.” If a taxpayer doesn’t respond to repeated digital reminders, the officer must “apply his/her mind” rather than blindly proceeding to an ex parte order.
Duty to Explore Other Modes: The Court mandated that officers should explore other modes under Section 169(1)—specifically Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD)—when portal notices go unanswered.
Wastage of Judicial Time: The Court observed that passing orders without effective service only leads to “multiplicity of litigations,” wasting the time of the Department, the Tribunals, and the High Court.
The Purpose of Section 169: The object of the Act is to ensure the taxpayer is actually informed. Relying solely on a dashboard upload that has been ignored is a failure to achieve this object.
Outcome: The assessment order was quashed, and the case was remanded for a fresh hearing.

Key Takeaways

Section 169 Hierarchy: The law provides multiple ways to serve a notice (Hand delivery, RPAD, Email, Portal, etc.). This ruling suggests that these are not just options, but tools that should be used sequentially or alternatively to ensure the taxpayer is reached.
The “Additional Notices” Trap: Many taxpayers only check the primary dashboard. This case reinforces that if you miss a notice because it was “hidden” in the portal, you can successfully argue a violation of Natural Justice if the Department didn’t also try to email or mail you.
Right to a Personal Hearing: Under Section 75(4), a personal hearing is mandatory if an adverse decision is contemplated. The Court has clarified that you cannot be said to have “waived” this right if you were never effectively served the notice in the first place.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Sathiah Ramesh

Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)^*

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

W.P. (MD) No. 3396 of 2026
W.M.P (MD) Nos. 2815 & 2818 of 2026

FEBRUARY 9, 2026

Maharajan R for the Petitioner. R.Suresh Kumar and S. Shanmugavel, AGPs for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent.

2. Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr. S. Shanmugavel, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the 3^rd 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 the respondent has already recovered more than 25% of the disputed tax amount from the petitioner. 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.

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 respondent has already recovered more than 25% of the disputed tax amount from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i)

The impugned order dated 18.07.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration.

(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 receipt of a copy of this order.

(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.