Auditor Failed to Check GST Notices Uploaded on GSTN: HC Quashes Ex-parte Order

The present writ petition (W.P. No. 23627 of 2025) dated July 01, 2025, is being filed by M/s. Karpagam Brick Industries (petitioner) under the GST Act in the Madras High Court. The case is between the petitioner and the State Tax Officer.

Background of the Case:

M/s. Karpagam Brick Industries (petitioner), represented by its proprietor Anloor Govindasamy Kuppusamy, filed a writ petition against the State Tax Officer, Kilpauk Assessment Circle, Chennai.

The petitioner is dissatisfied with the tax order dated 19.02.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-07 for the assessment year 2020-21 and hence challenged the order in the court.

Why Petitioner Filed Writ

• The tax officer had uploaded notices and communications regarding the GST assessment in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” section of the GST common portal.
• But the auditor of the petitioner did not check the GST portal, and they were not aware of it and hence could not respond to it timely.
• In conclusion, the tax officer passed an ex parte order dated 19.02.2025 against the petitioner without hearing their side in person, demanding tax payment.
• Petitioner argued as they were not given a fair chance to present their side via a personal hearing, it is unfair to pass any order.

Advocate Mr. K.A. Parthasarathi represented the side of the petitioner in the court, serving the following arguments:

• The petitioner was not aware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal.
• The petitioner was not served with any personal hearing before issuing the final order, which is a basic legal requirement.
• The petitioner is voluntarily agreeing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount immediately if given another chance to be heard.

Advocate Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik represented the side of the respondent in the court by serving the following points:

• The State Tax Officer admitted that the notices were only uploaded to the GST portal. Additionally, it was agreed that the petitioner was not served with any personal hearing.
• The State Tax Officer agreed that the matter can be sent back (remanded) for reconsideration; however, the petitioner must first pay 25% of the disputed tax.

Court’s Observation:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted the following key points:

• Uploading notices on the GST portal is a valid form of service, but if the taxpayer does not respond, the officer could have explored other methods under Section 169 of the GST Act (such as Registered Post Acknowledgement Due—RPAD, email, etc.).
• Only uploading notices and passing orders without personal hearings is not sufficient and would result in unnecessary legal action and waste of judicial time.
• In this case, the petitioner never received a proper chance to respond due to the failure to serve the notices effectively and the absence of a personal hearing.

Court’s Final Order

The Court quashed the impugned tax order dated 19.02.2025 and passed the following directions:

• The tax order is cancelled, and the matter is sent back to the State Tax Officer for fresh proceedings.
• However, the petitioner must pay 25% of the disputed tax within 4 weeks of receiving a copy of the court order.
• Once the amount is paid, the petitioner must submit their reply or objection along with any documents within 3 weeks from the date of payment.
• After receiving the reply, the tax officer must issue a 14-day advance notice to the petitioner for a personal hearing.
• Conduct the hearing and pass a fresh order based on merits as quickly as possible.