Effective service and personal hearing are essential; failed electronic service mandates alternative modes and remand with conditional payment.

Assessment order rendered without effective service and without affording a personal hearing is procedurally vitiated; where electronic service fails, the assessing officer must explore alternative prescribed modes of service (preferably registered post) before proceeding, and absence of such steps requires remand for fresh consideration. A conditional remedial framework - permitting remand subject to a partial payment by the assessee, a specified window to file objections, issuance of a clear personal hearing notice of fixed duration, and decision thereafter on merits - was endorsed to balance procedural fairness with revenue protection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned assessment order dated 19.09.2025, passed without affording personal hearing and after a prior assessment for the same year, is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration; and the appropriate remedial directions.

Analysis: The Court examined the fact that an earlier assessment order for the same assessment year had been passed and was under appeal, and that the impugned order was subsequently passed for a higher amount without any personal hearing. The Court found that service by portal upload, followed by repeated reminders without any response, required the officer to explore other modes of service prescribed under Section 169(1) of the Act (preferably RPAD) to effectuate service. The absence of effective service and lack of opportunity for personal hearing rendered the impugned order vitiated and liable to reconsideration. The petitioner offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount, and the respondent accepted remission of the matter subject to that payment and a fresh personal hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment order dated 19.09.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner pays 10% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks; the petitioner shall file reply/objection within three weeks of such payment; the respondent shall issue a clear 14 days notice fixing date for personal hearing and thereafter pass orders on merits in accordance with law; bank account to be unfrozen on proof of payment.

Final Conclusion: The remedy granted restores the petitioner's opportunity to be heard and requires the assessing authority to serve notices effectively and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law while conditioning relief on a partial payment to balance interests of revenue and assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order passed without effective service and opportunity of personal hearing is vitiated; where service by a particular electronic mode fails, the officer must explore other modes prescribed under Section 169(1) and a remand with conditional payment may be an appropriate remedy to secure both procedural fairness and revenue interest.

---