Merely Uploading GST Notice Not Sufficient: Ensure Proper Service

Merely Uploading GST Notice Not Sufficient: Ensure Proper Service

The current writ petition (W.P. No. 23620 of 2025) dated July 01, 2025, is being filed by Greensville Flat Owners Welfare Association (petitioner) in the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which allows people to approach the High Court directly if any government officer or body violates legal rights.

The Greensville Flat Owners Welfare Association is represented by their secretary, Mr. Sreeram Ramanathan, in this case. Their apartment is located in Sholinganallur, Chennai. Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Deputy Commissioner ST, and the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank Limited are the legal respondents in this case.

Background of Case

The petitioner disagreed with a GST assessment order passed on February 26, 2025, by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Kelambakkam (first respondent), related to the Financial Year 2020-21. They wanted the court to quash this order because they believed it was passed without giving them a fair chance to present their side.

Petitioner’s Complaint

Advocate Mr. N. N.Murali presented the case of the petitioner in the Madras High Court, serving the following arguments:

• The petitioner never received any physical copy of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) or notice for a personal hearing.
• The SCN (Show Cause Notice) was only uploaded on the GST portal on November 26, 2024, along with three reminders, but the petitioner never reviewed the GST portal; hence, they were not aware of it.
• Even the final order issued on February 26, 2025, was also only uploaded online, and no physical communication was made.
• Because of this reason, they did not receive a single chance to defend themselves, which is illegal as per the principle of natural justice that says everyone must be given a fair opportunity to be heard.

Petitioner’s Request

• Petitioner said, even after this much unfairness, they are voluntarily agreeing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount and asked the court to quash the GST assessment order and request to award them a second chance to present their side.

What did the Tax Department Say?

The government lawyer (Special Government Pleader) for GST did not strongly oppose the petitioner. He agreed that:

• If the petitioner was willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax, and
• If the Court thinks it is appropriate,
• Then the court may allow the petitioner a chance to explain and get the matter reconsidered.

Court’s Observation

The judge, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, reviewed the matter and made the following observations:

• Uploading notices on the GST portal is legally valid, but that alone may not be enough in every situation.
• If the taxpayer doesn’t respond even after reminders, the officer should use other methods of communication mentioned in Section 169(1) of the GST Act.
• For example, the officer could have sent notices via Registered Post (RPAD) or email, as also allowed under the Act.
• Only uploading notices online and then passing an order without a proper hearing may lead to multiple unnecessary court cases.
• Hence, the judge concluded that the order was passed without giving the petitioner a real chance to reply, and that was not right.

Court’s Final Order

The court quashed the GST assessment order but gave some conditions and instructions:

• The petitioner must pay 10% of the disputed tax amount within 4 weeks of receiving this court order.
• After that, the petitioner must submit their reply/objection (with documents) within 2 weeks.

The GST officer must then:

• Give at least 14 days’ notice for a personal hearing, and
• Pass a fresh order, after hearing the petitioner, based on the merits of the case.
• Once the petitioner shows proof of paying the 10% tax, the ICICI Bank (3rd respondent) is instructed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner immediately.