2026 (3) TMI 139 - HC - GST

Effective service of notices: portal-only service without personal hearing vitiates assessment; matter remitted subject to conditions.

Assessment order passed without affording personal hearing and based solely on GST-portal uploads was vitiated: the legal principle applied was that ... Validity of order passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing - Service by uploading notices on GST portal - duty to explore alternative modes of service under Section 169 - requirement of personal hearing before confirming show cause proposals. Service by uploading notices on GST portal - duty to explore alternative modes of service under Section 169 - Validity and effectiveness of service effected solely by uploading notices on the GST portal when there is no response from the taxpayer. - HELD THAT:- The Court acknowledged that uploading a notice on the GST portal constitutes a recognised mode of service. However, where repeated reminders elicit no response from the taxpayer, the Officer must apply his or her mind and explore other modes of service prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act so as to effectuate effective service rather than merely fulfil a formal requirement. Reliance on a single mode of communication without attempting alternative statutory modes (for example, registered post with acknowledgment) risks rendering service ineffective and may result in ex parte orders that invite further litigation. The Court emphasised that officers should take reasonable steps to ensure notices are effectively delivered before proceeding to confirm proposals in a show cause notice. [Paras 7, 8, 9] Uploading on the GST portal is a valid mode of service but, where there is no response, the Officer must explore other modes under Section 169 to ensure effective service. Requirement of personal hearing before confirming show cause proposals - Whether the assessment order confirming proposals in the show cause notice can stand where no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the impugned assessment order had been passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of personal hearing and while notices had been communicated only by uploading on the portal. Given the absence of an effective opportunity to be heard, the Court concluded that the assessment could not stand. In view of the petitioner's expressed willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the Court exercised remedial discretion to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. The remedial directions condition remand upon payment of 25% within four weeks, filing of reply/objection within three weeks thereafter, and issuance of a clear 14 day notice fixing a date for personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits expeditiously. [Paras 7, 10, 11] Impugned orders set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration; remand is conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax and subject to filing of reply and grant of a personal hearing as directed. Final Conclusion: The Court set aside the impugned assessment and summary orders for failure to afford an effective opportunity of hearing and for inadequate service steps; the matter is remanded to the assessing authority on condition of deposit of 25% of the disputed tax, with directions to accept the petitioner's reply, issue a 14 day notice for personal hearing and decide the matter on merits expeditiously. Issues: Whether the impugned assessment order passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and relying solely on notices uploaded on the GST portal was vitiated and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration.Analysis: The Court examined the material showing that show cause notices were uploaded on the GST portal but the petitioner did not receive any personal notice and no personal hearing was afforded prior to passing the assessment order. The Court noted that although uploading on the portal is a valid mode of service, where there is no response from the addressee the officer must apply mind and explore other modes of service prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act (for example RPAD) to effectuate effective service rather than merely completing a formal requirement. Having regard to the absence of opportunity of personal hearing and the requirement to ensure effective service, the Court considered it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter for fresh consideration, subject to conditions to balance the parties' interests.Conclusion: The impugned order dated 16.12.2024 and summary order dated 19.12.2024 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the assessing authority for fresh consideration on condition that the assessee pays 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, after which the assessee may file reply and the authority shall afford a 14 days clear notice fixing personal hearing and decide the matter on merits.