GST Notice: Officers Must Explore All Modes Under Section 169(1) Before Taking Action

The present writ petition (W.P. No. 23587 of 2025) is being filed by a company named M/s. Sri Murugan Agro Service, located in Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu, before the Madras High Court. The owner of the company is Mr. Govindasamy Murugan. The petitioner here is challenging a tax assessment order dated 01.02.2025 issued by the State Tax Officer, Gingee Assessment Circle, under Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act (Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax / Central Goods and Services Tax Act) for the financial year 2020-2021.

According to the petitioner, the passed order is illegal, arbitrary, and violates the principles of natural justice. Hence, it requests the Madras High Court to quash the order and stop the further proceedings regarding it.

Petitioner’s Claim

The petitioner’s lawyer named Mr. S. Karunamoorthy, argued the following points:

• They did not receive any proper notice before the order was passed, and it was an ex parte order.
• All notices from the tax officer were uploaded only on the GST online portal and on no other platforms. As they were unaware of this online upload, they were not able to respond to them on time or appear before the officer.
• As a result, the State Tax Officer issued the order without giving them a chance to explain or be heard, hence declaring the order as ex parte.
• However, they are ready to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount in return for providing them a second chance to present their side properly.

State Tax Officer’s Advocate View

The government’s lawyer, Ms. P. Selvi, agreed that:

• The notices were indeed uploaded on the GST portal, which is considered a valid way of communication.
• However, she admitted that the petitioner was not given a personal hearing before passing the final order.
• She agreed that the matter could be sent back to the tax officer, provided the petitioner pays 25% of the disputed tax.

Court’s Observations and Reasoning:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishnan Ramasamy of the Madras High Court gave the following observations:

• Uploading notices online is technically a valid method, but it may not be effective if the taxpayer is not aware of it. In this case, since the business didn’t respond, it appears they may not have seen the notices.
• The officer should have tried other methods of communication as mentioned under Section 169 of the GST Act, such as Registered post (RPAD), Email, Direct Delivery, Newspaper publication (in some cases).
• If the officer saw no response from the business, instead of just fulfilling formalities by uploading notices, they should have ensured effective communication. Otherwise, it becomes just a technical formality, not an actual service of notice.
• The Court emphasised that justice should be fair, and passing an order without hearing the other party leads to unnecessary litigation and wastes the time of the department and the judiciary.

Court’s Final Decision:

After listening to both sides, the court made the following final orders:

Quashed the impugned order dated 01.02.2025.

Send the case back to the State Tax Officer for fresh consideration. On the condition that:

• The petitioner must pay 25% of the disputed tax amount within 4 weeks from the date they receive the court order and;
• After paying, they must submit their objections/replies with any necessary documents within 3 weeks.

Then, the tax officer must give at least 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and listen to their side before making a new decision. The entire process must be done quickly and in accordance with the law.

After making the above-designated decisions, the writ petition was then closed.