Uploading GST notices online alone is not effective service under Section 169(1); alternative methods must be used for proper notice.

HC held that mere uploading of notices on the GST portal does not fulfill effective service requirements under Section 169(1) of the GST Act when there is no response from the taxpayer. The Officer must explore alternative modes of service, such as RPAD, to ensure proper notice and opportunity for hearing. The impugned ex parte order was set aside for lack of effective service and violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, with the setting aside effective from the date of payment. Petition disposed.

---

---

1. ISSUES:

1.1 Whether uploading notices/communications solely on the GST common portal constitutes effective service under the GST Act.

1.2 Whether the failure to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse order violates principles of natural justice.

1.3 Whether the tax authority is obligated to explore alternative modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act when no response is received from the taxpayer.

1.4 Whether setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration is appropriate upon the taxpayer's willingness to pay part of the disputed tax amount.

1.5 Whether the attachment on the taxpayer's bank account should be lifted following the setting aside of the impugned order.

2. RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

2.1 Uploading notices on the GST Portal alone, without ensuring actual awareness, does not constitute effective service if the taxpayer is unaware of such notices; the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, which is impermissible.

2.2 The Officer must apply his/her mind and explore alternative modes of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, such as sending notices by RPAD, when there is no response from the taxpayer to portal notices, to avoid "fulfilling the empty formalities."

2.3 The impugned order dated 17.12.2024 is set aside and the matter remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, conditional upon the taxpayer paying 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks.

2.4 Upon payment, the taxpayer shall file reply/objection within three weeks, and the respondent shall issue a 14-day clear notice fixing a date for personal hearing before passing orders on merits.

2.5 The attachment on the taxpayer's bank account is to be lifted immediately upon production of this order and proof of payment, as the attachment cannot survive the setting aside of the impugned order.

3. RATIONALE:

3.1 The Court applied the procedural requirements under the GST Act, particularly Section 169, governing modes of service of notices and orders.

3.2 The judgment emphasizes that mere uploading of notices on the GST Portal, without ensuring actual receipt or awareness, is insufficient for effective service, and the Officer must explore alternative prescribed modes to fulfill the object of the GST Act.

3.3 The Court underscored the principle that passing an ex parte order by "fulfilling the empty formalities" is not permissible as it leads to multiplicity of litigations and wastes judicial and administrative resources.

3.4 The decision reflects a doctrinal insistence on adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to a personal hearing before adverse orders are passed.

3.5 The Court's order to lift the bank attachment follows logically from setting aside the impugned order, ensuring the taxpayer's rights are protected pending fresh adjudication.

---