Assessment Order Quashed Due to Improper Service of Notice on GST Portal

Case Reference:
Tvl. S.M. Tex v. Deputy State Tax Officer-2
Madras High Court
W.P. No. 19660 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 04.06.2025
Category: Assessment / Principles of Natural Justice / Validity of Service of Notice
Relevant Section: Section 169 of CGST Act, 2017

🧾 Facts of the Case (Para 3–6)

• The petitioner, Tvl. S.M. Tex, received an intimation under DRC-01A (26.10.2023), followed by a SCN in DRC-01 (15.11.2023), uploaded on the GST portal (Para 3).

• Reminders and opportunity for personal hearing were also issued, but the petitioner neither replied nor participated (Para 3).

• The petitioner alleged that they were unaware of the SCN and proceedings, as the notices were only uploaded in the portal under “View Additional Notices and Orders” and not served by RPAD or any other prescribed method under Section 169(1) (Para 4).

• The petitioner voluntarily offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and sought one opportunity to respond (Para 5).

❓ Question(s) in Consideration (Para 6–7)

• Whether uploading notices only on the GST portal, without using other prescribed modes of service, satisfies the requirement of valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act?

• Whether non-service of SCN by proper means vitiates the assessment order?

🧭 Observation of Court (Para 6–8)

• The Court noted that though uploading on the portal is a valid mode of service under Section 169, it is not effective service when there’s no response from the taxpayer (Para 7).

• The authority ought to have used other permissible modes such as RPAD to ensure the taxpayer’s knowledge and participation (Para 7).

• The Court warned against fulfilling empty formalities that may lead to multiplicity of litigation and waste judicial time (Para 7).

• Since the petitioner wasn’t afforded proper opportunity, the Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated (Para 6).

🧑‍⚖️ Judgement of the Court (Para 8–9)

• The assessment order dated 24.04.2024 was quashed (Para 8(i)).

• The case was remanded back to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication (Para 8(ii)).

• Petitioner directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax within 2 weeks (Para 8(iii)).

• Petitioner must file a reply with documents within 2 weeks (Para 8(iv)).

• Authority must provide 14 days’ notice for personal hearing before passing fresh order (Para 8(v)).

🪶 Between Fine Lines

• GST notices must be effectively served beyond mere portal uploads if there’s no taxpayer response.

• Courts expect the department to exercise due diligence in ensuring communication reaches taxpayers.

• Natural justice requires opportunity to reply and personal hearing.

• Even valid service modes under law must be practically effective.

• Procedural errors can vitiate substantive orders.

📚 Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”