GST portal service is valid, but ex parte assessments may be set aside when taxpayers lack a meaningful hearing.

Uploading GST notices and assessment orders on the common portal is valid and sufficient service under the GST framework read with the Information Technology Act, with receipt occurring when the electronic record enters that portal. However, where the Department relied only on portal upload without using other available modes or ensuring a meaningful opportunity to respond, ex parte assessments were not sustained. Orders passed without consideration of replies or without personal hearing were treated as contrary to statutory hearing requirements and natural justice, leading to setting aside and remand for fresh adjudication. In matters where the assessment triggered consequential bank attachment, de-freezing followed setting aside of the assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of notices and orders by uploading them on the GST common portal amounted to valid and sufficient service under the GST Act read with the Information Technology Act, 2000; and (ii) whether the ex parte assessment orders, and the differing consequences attached to the various writ petitions, required interference and remand.

Issue (i): Whether service of notices and orders by uploading them on the GST common portal amounted to valid and sufficient service under the GST Act read with the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Analysis: The service provision under the GST enactment permits multiple alternative modes of service. Uploading on the common portal is one such mode and, when read with the electronic-record provisions of the Information Technology Act, the common portal operates as the relevant computer resource for receipt of communications. The Court held that uploading the notice or order on the common portal constitutes sufficient service, and that the receipt of the electronic record occurs when it enters that portal. At the same time, the Court found that such service, though legally sufficient, was not effective in the present batch because the Department did not meaningfully use the other available modes, such as registered post, even after non-response to earlier notices.

Conclusion: Service through the common portal is valid and sufficient in law, but the manner in which it was used in these cases did not justify sustaining all the ex parte orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte assessment orders, and the differing consequences attached to the various writ petitions, required interference and remand.

Analysis: The Court found that the assessment orders had been passed ex parte in circumstances where, in many cases, the petitioners did not effectively participate after notices were uploaded only on the portal and no effective follow-up mode was adopted. In the cases where replies had been filed but no personal hearing was granted, the orders were held to be contrary to the statutory requirement of hearing and to the principles of natural justice. The Court also distinguished certain cases based on cancellation of registration and the stage at which the petitioners could reasonably be expected to access the portal, and imposed different conditions in some matters while granting unconditional relief in others. The bank attachment, where consequential to the impugned assessment, was directed to be lifted upon setting aside of the assessment orders.

Conclusion: The ex parte orders were set aside and remanded across the batch, with unconditional relief in some matters and conditional remand in others, including directions for fresh replies, personal hearing, and de-freezing of bank accounts where consequential.

Final Conclusion: The batch was disposed of by protecting the assessee's opportunity of hearing while upholding the legal sufficiency of portal-based service, resulting in a mixed but substantially assessee-favourable outcome with remand for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Uploading statutory communications on the GST common portal constitutes sufficient service, but where the Department does not use the available modes effectively and the assessee is denied a meaningful opportunity of hearing, ex parte assessment orders may be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

---