HC Says: GST Show Cause Notices Must Be Delivered to Be Served:

HC Says: GST Show Cause Notices Must Be Delivered to Be Served

High Court Quashes Ex Parte GST Order Passed Due to Non-Delivery of GST Notice Writ petition allowed in part; fresh notice and 25% deposit ordered High Court Quashes Ex Parte GST Order Passed Due to Non-Delivery of GST Notice

Writ petition allowed in part; fresh notice and 25% deposit ordered

authorMeetu KumaridateJun 20, 2025
Last update on Jun 20, 2025
HC Says: GST Show Cause Notices Must Be Delivered to Be Served The assessee contested an assessment order dated 16.08.2024 for the fiscal year 2019–20 in a writ petition filed before the High Court, claiming that it violated natural justice principles. The assessee contested that the show cause notice was only posted on the GST portal on August 22, 2023, and the show cause notice was not delivered via any physical or alternative mode as per Section 169 of the GST Act mandate. Due to which the petitioner did not receive the notice and did not submit a response. The petitioner only became aware of it upon receipt of an attachment notice issued by the bank. The petitioner requested a remand for further consideration and offered to deposit 25% of the contested tax amount.
GST Applicability on Commission, Veterinary, and Laboratory Services Provided to Poultry Industry: AAR
Issue Raised: Whether the GST Act's requirement for an effective notice is met by simply uploading a notice on the GST portal without attempting any other service methods.
Self-Assessed Tax Already in GSTR-3B Not Recoverable Under Section 75(12): High Court
HC's Decision: The Court held that while portal service is legally permissible, in order to ensure effective service, the authority must take reasonable action if no response is received, especially as per Section 169(1), by looking into alternative modes such as Registered Post (RPAD). The court held that relying only on portal uploads can result in needless litigation. The Court revoked the assessment order, ruling that the assessee had not been given a fair opportunity. It permitted a new reply and ordered the petitioner to deposit 25% of the contested tax as offered. The department was directed to adjudicate the case again with a personal hearing and to remove the bank account attachment upon proof of deposit. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2163
Up Next

Loading suggestions…