Madras High Court Mandates Alternative Service Modes Under Section 169 When GST Portal Notices Go Unanswered

In the realm of Goods and Services Tax (GST) adjudication, the principles of natural justice remain paramount. A recurring point of contention between the Revenue Department and the assessee is the mode of service of notices. While digital transformation has streamlined compliance, the exclusive reliance on the GST Common Portal for serving notices—especially when the assessee remains unresponsive—has been a subject of judicial scrutiny.

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court, in the case of T. Ashok Kumar Contractor Vs Deputy State Tax Officer, addressed the validity of an assessment order passed ex-parte where the assessee failed to respond to notices uploaded solely on the portal. The Court emphasized that tax authorities must look beyond digital uploads and utilize alternative modes prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act to ensure effective service before finalizing adverse orders.

The Core Dispute: Digital Service vs. Actual Knowledge

The writ petition was filed by the assessee challenging an assessment order dated 10.02.2025. The crux of the grievance lay in the procedure adopted by the Revenue Department leading up to the final demand.

Factual Matrix

The respondent authorities had initiated proceedings against the assessee and subsequently passed an order on 10.02.2025. However, the assessee contended that they were completely oblivious to the proceedings. The primary reasons cited were:

  1. Exclusive Portal Upload: All show cause notices and preliminary communications were uploaded directly to the GST Common Portal.
  2. Lack of Physical Service: No physical copies of the notices were served upon the assessee.
  3. Unawareness: Due to the lack of physical intimation, the assessee remained unaware of the pending notices and, consequently, failed to file a reply within the statutory timeline.

The direct consequence of this lack of communication was that the Revenue passed the order without the assessee contesting the proposals. Furthermore, the assessee highlighted that the department had already proceeded to recover 25% of the disputed tax liability, causing significant financial hardship.