HC Warns Against Ex Parte GST Orders Based Solely on Portal Uploads

The assessee company filed a writ petition contesting the assessment order for FY 2018-19 that was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer on January 22, 2024. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice had not been served in hard copy and had only been posted on the GST portal. Since he was not aware of the notice, no response was submitted, and the order was ultimately issued ex parte, validating the notice’s recommendations.

He claimed that because there was no chance for a personal hearing, the proceedings went against the natural justice principles. In the event that the case was remanded for further consideration, the petitioner willingly offered to deposit 25% of the contested tax during the hearing. Given the voluntary deposit, the respondents’ government advocate concurred that the request could be taken into consideration.

Issue Raised: Whether service of a show cause notice solely by uploading it on the GST portal, without exploring other modes under Section 169 of the GST Act, constitutes effective service in compliance with principles of natural justice.

HC Held: The Court set aside the impugned order, observing that while uploading a notice on the GST portal is a valid mode of service, it must also be effective in ensuring communication. The Court held that if a taxpayer fails to respond despite repeated portal uploads, the authorities are duty-bound to explore other statutory modes of service under Section 169(1), such as Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). Passing an ex parte order by merely completing “empty formalities,” the Court emphasised, violates principles of natural justice and leads to unnecessary litigation.

The matter was remanded with clear directions. The petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks and then file a detailed reply with supporting documents within the following two weeks. The first respondent was directed to provide a clear 14‑day notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with the law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below