GST assessment notice served only via portal upload and no personal hearing; ex parte order set aside, remanded on 25% payment.

The dominant issue was breach of natural justice in GST assessment where the SCN was served only by portal upload and the assessee claimed unawareness and no personal hearing was afforded. The HC held that while portal upload is a valid mode of service, persistent non-response should have prompted the officer to apply mind and attempt alternate statutory modes under s.169(1), preferably RPAD, to ensure effective service; passing an ex parte order on "empty formalities" was impermissible. The impugned assessment order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration, conditional on the assessee paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, with setting aside to take effect upon such payment.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(a) Whether the impugned assessment order was vitiated for want of effective service and denial of opportunity of personal hearing when notices were only uploaded on the GST portal and the taxpayer did not respond.

(b) Whether, in the circumstances of non-response to portal-uploaded notices, the proper officer was required to explore other statutorily recognised modes of service (as contemplated under Section 169 of the GST Act) to ensure effective service before proceeding ex parte.

(c) Whether the impugned order should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration subject to a condition of deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount, along with directions on filing objections and granting personal hearing.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) & (b): Validity of the assessment order in light of service through GST portal and absence of personal hearing

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court addressed service of notices under the modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, observing that uploading in the portal is one recognised mode, but other prescribed modes are also valid and may be necessary to ensure effective service.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the show cause notice had been uploaded in the GST portal tab and that the taxpayer claimed lack of awareness and non-furnishing of the original notice. The Court noted that the assessment order confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice and was passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, a fact fairly admitted by the revenue. While recognising that portal uploading can constitute sufficient service, the Court reasoned that where repeated portal communications elicit no response, the officer should apply mind and explore other modes of service prescribed under Section 169 to make service effective. Proceeding ex parte merely by repeating the same mode, without ensuring effective communication, was treated as "empty formalities" and likely to cause multiplicity of litigation and wastage of institutional time.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that there was a lack of effective opportunity to the taxpayer, since the impugned assessment was passed without personal hearing and without the officer exploring alternative statutorily recognised modes of service when portal uploads did not yield any response. This defect warranted interference.

Issue (c): Remand and conditional deposit of 25% of disputed tax; directions for reply and personal hearing

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the taxpayer's submission expressing willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, and the revenue's request that remand be made subject to such payment. Considering the absence of personal hearing and the need for effective service and adjudication on merits, the Court held that setting aside and remanding the matter with conditions would balance interests.

Conclusions: The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to: (i) payment of 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, with the setting aside taking effect from the date of such payment; (ii) filing of reply/objections with documents within three weeks from payment; and (iii) the authority issuing a 14 days clear notice fixing personal hearing and thereafter passing orders on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously.

---