Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12124

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
Selvi – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner (App – Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos.15285, 12457 to 12461 of 2024 | W.M.P(MD)Nos.13403, 13404, 11124, 11127, 11129, 11082, 11083, 11084, 11058, 11059, 11060, 11087, 11090, 11094, 11089, 11092 & 11095 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Aravindan
For the Respondents: R. Suresh Kumar

When a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal, the assessing officer should explore alternative modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act (e.g., RPAD) to ensure effective service and avoid empty formalities before passing ex parte orders.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged six assessment orders passed ex parte under the GST Act, contending that notices were only uploaded to the GST portal and no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided. The court analyzed the validity of service via the portal in light of Section 169 of the GST Act, finding that while portal uploads are sufficient, the failure of the taxpayer to respond should prompt the officer to explore other prescribed modes of service to ensure effective communication. The primary issue was whether merely uploading notices on the GST portal constitutes effective service when the taxpayer remains unresponsive. The court reasoned that "merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose" and that officers should strictly explore other modes as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, to achieve the object of the GST Act. The impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount.

Table of Content
1. challenge to ex parte gst assessment orders due to lack of personal hearing and awareness of portal notices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. requirement of effective service beyond portal uploads under section 169 of the gst act to avoid empty formalities. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. setting aside of ex parte orders and remand for fresh consideration subject to partial tax payment. (Para 9 , 10)

Common Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in GSTIN. 33AACCO15651ZZ dated 27.12.2023 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in GSTIN. 33AACCO1565B1ZZ dated 27.12.2023 calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference No. ZD3302241135115 dated 20.02.2024 for 2018-2019 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference No. ZD3302241135115 dated 20.02.2024 for 2018-2019 calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference No. ZD330224114437S dated 20.02.2024 for 2019-2020 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference No. ZD330224114437S dated 20.02.2024 for 2019-2020 calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference No. ZD330224137455N dated 22.02.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference No. ZD330224137455N dated 22.02.2024 calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference No. ZD330224137674J dated 22.02.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference No. ZD330224137674J dated 22.02.2024 calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference No. ZD330224156349F dated 26.02.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Reference No.ZD330224156349F dated 26.02.2024

For Petitioner

in all petitions : Mr.R.Aravindan

For Respondent

in all petitions : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, AGP

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the 6 impugned orders dated 27.12.2023, 20.02.2024, 20.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 22.02.2024 & 26.02.2024, pertaining to the AYs 2017-2018 to 2022-2023 respectively, passed by the 2nd respondent

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, these petitions have been filed.

3. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, in each case, to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned orders.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Porta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document