Issuance of notice under Section 73 of GST Act requires alternative service modes if portal upload remains ineffective; order set aside and reply directed

Sending notices by uploading on a portal is a valid mode of service under the GST Act, but officers must apply their minds and, where there is no response, explore other modes of service prescribed by law (preferably RPAD) to ensure effective service; failure to do so renders subsequent ex parte assessment orders without jurisdiction. The impugned assessment order was set aside for lack of effective service and the petitioner was directed to treat that assessment order as a notice under the Acts post-assessment notice procedure and file a reply accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned assessment order passed without personal hearing and following service solely by uploading notices on the GST portal was vitiated for lack of effective service and opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether issuance of notice under Section 73 of the GST Act and consequential assessment for the financial year 2024-2025 was without jurisdiction given omission of Sections 73 and 74 and applicability of Section 74A from 01.04.2024.

Issue (i): Whether service by uploading on the GST portal without exploring other modes under Section 169(1) when there was no response, and passing an ex parte order without personal hearing, rendered the assessment order invalid.

Analysis: The Court examined the facts showing notices were uploaded on the GST common portal, the petitioner did not receive personal notice and no personal hearing was granted prior to passing the assessment. The respondent conceded that opportunity of personal hearing was not provided. The Court considered Section 169(1) modes of service and observed that where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices the officer must consider alternative modes (including RPAD) to achieve effective service rather than merely fulfilling formalities leading to ex parte orders. The Court addressed the consequences of ineffective service and absence of hearing on the validity of the assessment order.

Conclusion: The impugned order is vitiated for lack of effective service and absence of personal hearing; relief is granted in favour of the petitioner on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice and assessment issued under Section 73 for the financial year 2024-2025 was without jurisdiction because Sections 73 and 74 were omitted with effect from 01.04.2024 and Section 74A applies.

Analysis: The Court noted the legislative change omitting Sections 73 and 74 from 01.04.2024 and that only Section 74A governs assessments for the relevant period. The impugned show cause notice and assessment were issued under Section 73 despite the omission, and the Court held that such exercise lacked jurisdiction. To prevent delay and facilitate fresh adjudication, the Court directed that the impugned order be treated as a notice under Section 74A and afforded opportunity to file objections.

Conclusion: The assessment issued under Section 73 for 2024-2025 was without jurisdiction; the petitioner’s challenge on this ground succeeds.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment order dated 17.06.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration under the correct statutory provision (Section 74A), with directions to effect effective service and grant personal hearing; overall relief is granted to the petitioner enabling fresh adjudication consistent with statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: Where notices uploaded on the GST portal do not elicit a response, the officer must consider alternative modes of service prescribed in Section 169(1) to ensure effective service and provide opportunity of personal hearing; assessments issued under a statutory provision omitted by law for the relevant period are without jurisdiction and must be set aside and reconsidered under the applicable provision (Section 74A) after affording the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard.

---