Portal Upload Alone Without Alternative Service Modes or Personal Hearing Justifies Remand on Partial Tax Deposit

By | November 10, 2026
0 Comment
Portal Upload Alone Without Alternative Service Modes or Personal Hearing Justifies Remand on Partial Tax Deposit
Issue
  • Whether uploading a Show Cause Notice exclusively on the GST portal without attempting alternative statutory service modes (such as RPAD) or granting a personal hearing vitiates an ex parte assessment order when the assessee asserts unawareness.
Facts
  • Assessment Order Challenge: The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO).
  • Mode of Service: The Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequent communications were served exclusively by uploading them on the GST portal.
  • Unawareness and Non-Filing: The petitioner did not access the portal, remained unaware of the pending proceedings, and consequently filed no reply.
  • Ex Parte Order: The AO passed an ex parte assessment order without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing or furnishing the original SCN.
  • Absence of Alternative Service: The tax authorities made no effort to resort to other statutory modes of service, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD), despite receiving no response to the portal upload.
  • Conditional Willingness: The petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount to obtain a fresh opportunity to defend the case on merits.
Decision
  • Insufficiency of Unresponsive Portal Upload: While a portal upload technically constitutes sufficient service under Section 169, relying solely on it when an assessee remains unresponsive renders service a mere empty formality.
  • Duty to Pursue Alternative Service Modes: Where no response is received following a portal upload, the Assessing Officer is required to explore other statutory service modes, preferably RPAD, to ensure effective notice.
  • Quashing and Remand: The impugned ex parte assessment order dated 09.12.2025 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.
  • Opportunity of Hearing: The remand was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, with directions to the AO to afford a proper opportunity of personal hearing and permit submission of a reply.
  • Favour: Rendered in favour of the assessee / matter remanded.
Key Takeaways
  • Portal Service Must Be Effective, Not Formality: When portal notifications draw no response, tax officers cannot mechanically proceed ex parte without attempting alternative service channels like RPAD.
  • Mandated Personal Hearing: Section 75 mandates that an adverse assessment order passed without affording a personal hearing violates natural justice principles and is liable to be set aside.
  • Conditional Remand Mechanism: Courts frequently balance revenue interest and natural justice by setting aside ex parte orders on the condition that the taxpayer pre-deposits a reasonable portion (e.g., 25%) of the disputed tax.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
OSM Projects (P.) Ltd.
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax
Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
WP No. 42324 of 2026
WMP NO. 47558 & 47560 OF 2026
OCTOBER  15, 2026
Lalitendra Gulani for the Petitioner. G.Meganathan, Jr. St. Counsel and S. Gurumoorthy, Sr. St. Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr.G.Meganathan, learned Junior Standing counsel, for Mr.S.Gurumoorthy, learned Senior Standing counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2.
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 had failed to view the portal, they were not aware of the said notices, due to which, 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. Hence, this petition has been filed.
5. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is ready and 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 counsel 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 by the petitioner.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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, despite the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., 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 amount to 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 has been lack of efforts in exploring the available opportunities to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively on the petitioner.
11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and 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 09.12.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 09.12.2025 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 ten 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 miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.47560 of 2026 is closed and the miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.47558 of 2026, which has been filed to dispense with the production of original assessment order, is ordered.