In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has set aside an assessment order issued by the State Tax Officer against Adhiyappan Servai Construction, finding that the petitioner was denied an opportunity for a personal hearing before the order was passed. The decision, delivered by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy on 26 February 2026, underscores the importance of effective service of notices and adherence to principles of natural justice in GST proceedings.
The petitioner, Adhiyappan Servai Construction, challenged the impugned order dated 30 July 2025, contending that all communications and notices from the respondent were uploaded solely on the GST common portal. The petitioner claimed unawareness of these notices, resulting in a failure to respond within the stipulated time. Consequently, the assessment order was passed ex parte, without affording the petitioner a personal hearing. The petitioner sought the quashing of the order and a direction for a fresh opportunity to present its case.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner was willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for remand. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged that while notices were uploaded on the GST portal, no personal hearing was provided prior to the issuance of the impugned order. The respondent agreed to a remand, subject to the petitioner’s payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
The Court examined the record and found that the show cause notice was indeed uploaded on the GST portal, but the petitioner asserted that it was not aware of its issuance and had not received the original notice. The Court observed that while uploading notices on the portal constitutes sufficient service under the law, tax officers are expected to exercise due diligence. If there is no response from the taxpayer, officers should explore alternative modes of service as prescribed under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, such as Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), to ensure effective communication. The Court cautioned that mere formal compliance without genuine service undermines the purpose of the Act and leads to unnecessary litigation.
Justice Ramasamy emphasized that when a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through a particular mode, it is incumbent upon the officer to utilize other valid modes of service to achieve the objectives of the GST Act. The Court found that the lack of effective service and the absence of a personal hearing constituted a violation of the petitioner’s rights.
In light of these findings, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. The Court directed the petitioner to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment. The respondent was instructed to issue a clear 14-day notice for a personal hearing and to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner.
The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The judgment reinforces the necessity for tax authorities to ensure effective service of notices and to provide taxpayers with a fair opportunity to be heard before passing adverse orders.
Case Reported at:
Case Name: Adhiyappan Servai Construction v. State Tax Officer
Case Citation: (2026) taxcode.in 542 HC
