Madras High Court Clarifies GST Notice Service: Officers Must Use Multiple Modes Under Section 169 If No Response on Portal

In a ruling on the procedural requirements for service of notices under the GST regime, the Madras High Court has clarified the obligations of tax authorities when taxpayers do not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal. The Court emphasized that mere portal uploads, without further efforts to ensure actual notice, may not constitute effective service under the law.

The case arose from a challenge to an assessment order dated 18 July 2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (State Tax), Pudukkottai Zone. The petitioner contended that all communications and notices were uploaded solely on the GST common portal, and due to lack of awareness, they failed to file a timely reply. The impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, prompting the writ petition.

During the hearing, the respondent authorities acknowledged that while notices were uploaded on the GST portal, no personal hearing was provided before the order was passed. The Additional Government Pleader fairly admitted this lapse and requested that the matter be remitted for fresh consideration.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, after hearing both sides, observed that although service of notice by uploading on the portal is recognized as sufficient under the GST Act, the effectiveness of such service must be assessed in context. The Court noted that if a taxpayer does not respond to repeated notices sent via the portal, the responsible officer must apply their mind and consider using other modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act. These include, but are not limited to, service by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD), which the Court described as a preferable method to ensure the object of the Act is achieved.

The Court cautioned that fulfilling only the formalities of service, without ensuring actual notice, leads to ex parte orders that may result in unnecessary litigation and waste judicial resources. The judgment underscores that officers must not treat portal uploads as a mere box-ticking exercise, but must actively seek to ensure that notices are effectively served, especially when there is no response from the taxpayer.

In light of these findings, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order and remanded the matter to the respondent authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file their reply and supporting documents within three weeks of receiving the order. The respondent was instructed to issue a clear 14-day notice, fix a date for personal hearing, and pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner.

This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness and effective service of notice are integral to the GST adjudication process. The Court’s directions aim to ensure that taxpayers are given a real opportunity to be heard, and that authorities discharge their statutory duties in a manner that upholds the objectives of the GST Act.