The Madras High Court ruled that Goods and Services Tax notices must be served precisely. The court also stated that if no response is received to a notice uploaded on the GST portal, the notice must be issued via Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD).
The applicant, Tvl. Sri Mathuru Eswarar Traders, a commission agent involved in cotton ginning and a registered GST dealer, contested the order of assessment on 30.12.2024, which validated the recommendation in the SCN and the tax demanded of more than Rs 9.67 lakh along with the interest and penalty.
The SCN was uploaded on the GST portal, and no one paid attention to it, the court said while refusing the applicants’ chance to answer.
The SCN was not served physically, and no personal hearing was granted before confirming the demands, Justice N. Mala cited.
Only uploading the notice on the GST portal without ensuring its receipt does not form a valid service u/s 169 of the CGST Act, the court mentioned. Tax officers on non-response to the portal notice should see the other methods of service, like registered post, to ensure persuasive communication.
Without a follow-up up the mechanical act of uploading the notices was considered a breach of the principles of natural justice and can lead to unnecessary litigation. “Mere uploading notice repeatedly without ensuring their receipt by the petitioner cannot be considered as effective service. Such mechanical compliance does not serve any useful purpose and the same will only lead to multiplicity of litigations, wasting not only the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority / Tribunal and this Court as well. Thus, when there was no response from the taxpayer to the notice uploaded in the portal, the Officer should have sent the notice through RPAD, which would have served the purpose.”
Setting aside the order of assessment, the court remanded the case to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. It asked the applicant to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 2 weeks and thereafter submit a response with the supporting documents.
The authority was advised to grant a 14-day notice and furnish a personal hearing before passing a fresh order. The court asked the authorities to unfreeze the bank account of the applicant on the proof of partial tax deposit.
| Case Title | Tvl. Sri Mathuru Eswarar Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer |
| Case No. | WP No. 16787 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.19028 and 19029 of 2025 |
| For Petitioner | V. Parthiban, T. Yazhlini, P. Hemanthraj, and S. Kumaraganeshan |
| For Respondent | V.Prasanth Kumar |
| Madras High Court | Read Order |
