Madras High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte GST Assessment Order for Lack of Proper Service:

The Madras High Court held that merely uploading GST notices isn’t enough; taxpayers must be given a fair chance to respond.
Madras High Court Sets Aside GST Order for Lack of Fair Hearing

Madras High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte GST Assessment Order for Lack of Proper Service
Under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, Tvl. Iyarkai, on behalf of its owner, R. Gavaskar, filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court contesting an assessment order issued on December 13, 2024, for the Assessment Year 2018–19. The petitioner argued that the assessment order violated principles of natural justice and was issued without adequate notice.
The petitioner contended that although a show cause notice (DRC-01) and its notification (DRC-01A) had been posted on the GST portal, he was not aware of the proceedings because he had not accessed the portal. The GST registration had previously been cancelled due to business closure. Consequently, neither a personal hearing nor a reply was filed.
Issue Raised: Whether the assessment order passed solely based on notices uploaded on the GST portal, without adopting alternate service methods prescribed under Section 169 of the CGST Act, was valid.
Hon’ble Madras High Court’s Decision: The matter was remanded to the assessing officer for a new decision after the Hon'ble High Court invalidated the contested order dated December 13, 2024. The Court ruled that while a portal service is legitimate, the goal of fair adjudication is undermined by merely following the procedure without guaranteeing actual notice. When portal notices are not answered, it advises the respondents to look into alternative service options, such as RPAD.
The Hon'ble Court granted a conditional remand with the following instructions after acknowledging the petitioner's willingness to pay 25% of the contested tax. The petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks. Post that the petitioner must file a thorough reply with supporting documentation within two weeks.
The respondent must give a clear 14-day notice for a personal hearing and pass a fresh order after due consideration.
The writ petition was thus disposed of with no order as to costs.
To Read Judgment, Download PDF given below.
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
2165My Recent Articles
- ITAT Quashes Rs 2 Crore Penalty as Time-Barred; Limitation Starts from AO’s Reference, Not Show-Cause NoticePremium
- ITAT Remands Appeal After Finding NFAC Ignored 89 Pages of Evidence on Cash Deposits and Flat Improvement CostPremium
- ITAT Grants Fresh Opportunity in Rs 2.63 Crore Foreign Bank Credit Addition CasePremium
- ITAT Deletes Section 68 Addition on Explained Demonetisation Cash DepositsPremium
- ITAT Grants Section 80P Relief to Souharda Society, Remands Demonetisation DepositsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








