GST Portal Notice Alone Insufficient: Madras High Court Directs Alternate Service Modes Under Section 169 Before Passing Ex Parte Orders

Case Overview

Case Name: Tvl.Kavitha Litho Press Vs Deputy State Tax Officer – 2
Court: Madras High Court
Orders Challenged: Assessment order dated 29.12.2023 and summary order dated 06.12.2024

The Madras High Court, in this significant ruling, set aside a GST assessment order and its accompanying summary order on the ground that the assessee was never afforded a genuine opportunity of personal hearing. The Court went further to articulate a crucial principle — that uploading notices exclusively on the GST common portal, without exploring alternative modes of service when no response is received, amounts to nothing more than a procedural formality and cannot be treated as effective service.

Background and Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Tvl.Kavitha Litho Press, approached the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition, seeking to challenge the impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2023 and the summary order dated 06.12.2024 issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer – 2.

The core grievance of the petitioner was straightforward: all notices and communications in the matter were uploaded solely on the GST common portal. The assessee, being unaware of these portal-based communications, could not respond within the stipulated timeframe. Taking advantage of this non-response, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order — notably, without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee before finalising its findings.

The matter was taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself, with both parties consenting to an early hearing.

Arguments Advanced by the Petitioner

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Tvl.Kavitha Litho Press put forth the following contentions before the Court:

  • All show cause notices and related communications were uploaded by the respondent authority exclusively through the GST online portal.
  • Since the assessee had no awareness of these portal-based notices, no reply or response was submitted within the prescribed time.
  • The adjudicating authority, without drawing the assessee's attention through any alternative channel, proceeded to pass the impugned order entirely ex parte.
  • No opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the assessee at any stage prior to the passing of the order.
  • The petitioner expressed a clear willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for remand, and sought a fresh opportunity to present their case before the respondent authority.

Respondent's Submissions

The learned Additional Government Pleader, representing the respondent Deputy State Tax Officer – 2, made the following submissions:

  • The department had duly uploaded all notices on the GST online portal, which, as per the statutory framework, constitutes a valid mode of service.
  • It was, however, fairly and candidly admitted before the Court that no opportunity of personal hearing had been provided to the assessee prior to the passing of the impugned assessment order.
  • The respondent did not oppose the remand of the matter, provided the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount — as offered by the petitioner — was made a precondition.

The following core questions arose for the Court's consideration: