Effective service of notice: portal upload alone insufficient without steps to secure actual notice; assessment remitted and attachment released.

Where show cause notices were uploaded on the GST portal but no personal notice or hearing was afforded, the uploading alone does not suffice if it does not produce effective service; the issuing officer must, where the taxpayer does not respond, pursue statutory alternate modes of service (including registered post/RPAD) to secure a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Consequently the impugned assessment was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration with directions to permit filing of objections, to give clear notice of a personal hearing, and to release any bank attachment effected under the vacated order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment order passed without personal hearing and relying solely on notices uploaded on the GST portal, without effective service, should be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration; and whether the bank attachment effected pursuant to that order should be released.

Analysis: The Court examined the record and found that the show cause notice and related communications were uploaded on the GST portal but the petitioner did not receive any personal notice and no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded prior to passing of the impugned assessment order. The respondent conceded that no personal hearing was provided. The Court applied the statutory methods of service under Section 169(1) of the GST Act and observed that while portal upload is a valid mode of service, the issuing officer must, where there is no response from the taxpayer, explore other modes of service prescribed by the statute (including registered post/RPAD) to make service effective and to ensure the taxpayer is given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The Court noted that merely completing formalities by portal upload and proceeding ex parte leads to ineffective service and multiplicity of litigation. Considering that the disputed tax amount had been recovered, the Court held that remand for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the petitioner to file objections and to be heard was appropriate. The Court further reasoned that because the impugned order was set aside, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account made pursuant to that order could no longer subsist and ought to be released immediately on production of this order.

Conclusion: The impugned order dated 15.09.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration; the petitioner is granted three weeks to file reply/objections and the respondent shall give 14 days clear notice fixing a date for personal hearing before passing fresh orders; the attachment on the petitioner's bank account is to be released and the bank instructed to de-freeze the account upon production of this order. The decision is in favour of the assessee.

---