The court upheld that notification via the common portal is sufficient under Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, but emphasized the necessity of effective communication methods to uphold principles of natural justice.

COMMON ORDER

All the writ petitions have been filed challenging the respective ex parte assessment orders/assessment orders passed by the concerned Assessing Officers.

2. Brief Facts of the cases:

2.1 In writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.3119, 4015 & 5038 of 2025, the petitioners had filed their reply, however, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided by the respondent prior to the passing of assessment orders. Hence, the said assessment orders were challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the said orders had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

2.2 In writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.3084 & 4032 of 2025, the appeals were preferred by the petitioners against the assessment orders, however, the said appeals were rejected by the respondents on the aspect of limitation. Now, the challenge is made only against the ex parte assessment orders.

2.3 In W.P.No.5055 of 2025, the ex parte assessment order was passed subsequent to the suo motto cancellation of GST Registration by the respondent, whereas, in W.P.No.5806 of 2025 is concerned, the GST Registration of the petitioner was cancelled based on the voluntary request made by the petitioner. Subsequent to the said cancellation, the impugned ex parte assessment order was passed by the respondent. 2.4 In all the other writ petitions, being unaware of the show cause notices, the petitioners were unable to file their reply. Under these circumstances, the assessment orders have been passed in ex parte without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners.

3. Submissions made on behalf of the petitioners:

3.1 Mr.Joseph Prabhakar, Mr.S.Durairaj, Mr.G.Natarajan, Mr.K.Sankaranarayan, Mr.S.Sathyanarayan, Mr.N.V.Balaji & Mr.V.Sundaresan, all the learned counsel had advanced their arguments on behalf of the petitioners.

3.2 According to the petitioners, they were unable to participate in the proceedings for the following reasons:

i) In majority of cases, the Show Cause Notices were uploaded by the respondents in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column instead of “View Notices” column and hence, though the petitioners had occasions to visit the portal twice in a month for filing their monthly returns, the said show cause notices were remained unnoticed, due to which, the petitioners were unable to participate in the assessment proceedings.

ii) In some matters, the petitioners had nominated the Consultants for handling the GST matter, such as filing the returns, responding to the notices, etc. Since the said consultants had failed to follow up the portal, they were unaware of the assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The said proceedings came to the knowledge of the petitioners only when the recovery notices were issued by the respondent.

iii) In some cases, the employee, who was entrusted by the petitioner for handling GST matters, was indisposed or left the job and hence, they were unable to participate in the assessment proceedings before the respondent-

Department.

iv) In few cases, the petitioners are senior citizens and hence, either due to the lack of knowledge about computer operations or due to ill-health, they had failed to follow up the matters and unable to file their reply for the show cause notice issued by the respondent.

3.3 By referring the provisions of Section 169 of the GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017 (hereinafter called as “GST Act”), the respective learned counsel for the petitioners woul