Non-Service of SCN via Valid Mode Vitiates Assessment Order under GST

Case Summary

Case Title: National Construction Company v. Deputy State Tax Officer
Court: Madras High Court
Petition Number: W.P.No.16890 of 2025 & W.M.P.Nos.19153 & 19158 of 2025
Category: Natural Justice / Procedural Lapse under GST
Date of Judgment: 03.06.2025
Relevant Section(s): Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, 2017
Issue: Validity of assessment order passed without effective service of notice and opportunity of hearing

Facts of the Case

(Para 3, 7, 8)

• The petitioner challenged an order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer concerning GSTIN 33AAOFN4085C1ZB for FY 2019-2020.

• The petitioner contended that notices were uploaded only on the GST portal under “View Additional Notices and Orders”, without personal communication or physical delivery.

• The petitioner remained unaware and could not respond or appear for personal hearing, which led to the ex parte assessment.

Question(s) in Consideration

(Para 7, 8, 9)

1. Whether uploading of notices solely on the GST portal without exploring other prescribed modes under Section 169 constitutes valid service?

2. Whether the impugned assessment order passed without granting a personal hearing violates principles of natural justice?

Observation of the Court

(Para 7–10)

• While portal upload is technically a valid mode under Section 169, it cannot substitute effective service if the taxpayer remains unresponsive.

• The officer ought to have explored alternative prescribed modes like RPAD to ensure effective communication (Para 8).

• The impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner a personal hearing and in absence of their reply, rendering it vitiated (Para 9).

• The petitioner’s willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount was taken into account for granting relief (Para 10).

Judgment of the Court

(Para 10)

• The impugned assessment order dated 14.08.2024 was set aside.

• The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within 4 weeks.

• Petitioner to file objections within 3 weeks after payment.

• Respondent must provide 14 days’ notice and afford personal hearing before passing fresh orders.

Between Fine Lines (Simplified Insight)

• GST notices must not just be uploaded; they must be effectively communicated.

• Portal uploads alone don’t justify ex parte orders if other modes under Section 169 aren’t tried.

• Personal hearing is a critical safeguard under GST adjudication.

• Courts will quash orders lacking procedural fairness.

• Remand with conditions (like partial tax deposit) balances revenue interest and justice.

Summary of Referred Cases