GST Portal Notice Alone Not Enough if Unanswered – Alternate Service Required | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

GST notice service
Case Details: Ramesh Enterprises New Krishna Rice Depot vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (2026) 39 Centax 283 (Mad.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
  • Shri J. Senthil Kumaraiah, for the Petitioner.
  • Shri R. Suresh Kumar, AGP, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was engaged in the retail business of rice selling. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner through the GST portal. The petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice, and the original show cause notice was not furnished to them. The impugned assessment order was passed confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.

High Court Held

The Madras High Court held that sending notice by uploading it to the portal is sufficient service. However, the officer who is sending repeated reminders, despite the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices, should have explored the possibility of sending notices through other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also valid service modes under the Act. Otherwise, it will not be an effective service; rather, it would only fulfil empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose, and the same will only pave the way for multiplicity of litigations, wasting the time of the Officer concerned, the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and the Court as well. Thus, when there is no response from the taxpayer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, there was a lack of opportunities being provided to serve notices/orders effectively to the petitioner. Impugned order was to be set aside, and the matter was to be remanded to the respondent authority for fresh consideration.

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *