The GST (Goods and Services Tax) notice and order service via the common portal is one area of recent judicial focus, as Indian courts uphold the statute with regard to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
With a unique login and password issued to every registered taxpayer, the GST portal is considered a specified computer resource for official communication. Recent High Court judgments have made and, on occasion, questioned the adequacy and efficiency of serving notices through this platform.
Many grievances have been filed by taxpayers complaining that they were not aware of hearing notices because these were posted only on the GST portal. Due to illiteracy or improper communication, many taxpayers were not able to respond to notices or appear in the hearings.
Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here
M/s.Annai Velanganni Industries vs The State Tax Officer CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 661
The Madras High Court condoned a delay of 192 days in filing an appeal under the GST Act, accepting the petitioner’s explanation that the delay was caused by the part-time accountant’s failure to inform them about ongoing proceedings and the ill health of the proprietor. The petitioner, a wooden products manufacturer with limited GST knowledge and no portal access, missed the personal hearing, leading to an ex-parte order dated 20.05.2024. Upon learning of the order through recovery action, the petitioner promptly filed an appeal, which was rejected on limitation grounds. Observing that genuine hardships justified the delay, the Court set aside the rejection order and directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.
Sparkin Sunlit Private Limited vs Commissioner Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Anr. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 640
The Delhi High Court set aside a demand order issued against Sparkin Sunlit Private Limited, directing the GST Department to reissue and rehear a show cause notice (SCN) dated 9th December 2023, which had been improperly uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab on the GST portal. A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed the GST authorities to re-upload the SCN properly and also email it to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file a reply, and the adjudicating authority was instructed to pass a fresh order after granting a personal hearing.
Know the complete aspects of tax implications of succession, Click here
M/s Hindustan Pipes Sales vs State of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 479
The Allahabad High Court quashed a GST demand order issued against Hindustan Pipes Sales after finding that crucial notices were improperly uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab on the GST portal, instead of the ‘Due Notices and Orders’ tab. This misplacement prevented the petitioner from becoming aware of the proceedings and responding in time. The challenged order dated 16.04.2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, was held to have violated principles of natural justice. Accepting the explanation, the division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Since the tax amount had already been deposited, the Court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh reply.
M/S RAJ INTERNATIONAL vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI WEST & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 471
The Delhi High Court ordered the GST department to enhance the management of procedural lapses like refund delays and failure to serve hearing notices. The Court made it clear that the problems could be solved in the first hearing if the department served timely directions to its legal counsels. The petitioner claimed that written submissions were disregarded and no personal hearing notice was served. The Court directed both sides to file evidence from the GST portal about filings and notice communication. Referring to the chronic nature of procedural complaints in GST cases, the Court directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi Zone, to consider deputing two officers from the litigation wing to liaison with Commissionerates.
Chokalingam Srinivasan vs The Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 378
The Madras High Court has held that merely uploading notices on the GST portal does not constitute sufficient service, especially when the assessee is unaware of the proceedings. The petitioner, a works contract service provider registered under the GST Act, 2017, faced proceedings under Section 61 of the TNGST Act for the year 2018–19 based on discrepancies found during an audit. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq conditionally set aside the assessment order, directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed amount within four weeks, after which the tax department must lift recovery measures such as bank attachment.
M/S Ram Balak Gupta vs State of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 370
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court quashed a GST demand against Ram Balak Gupta after finding that the notices and orders were improperly uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the “Due Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal. The petitioner argued that this misplacement prevented him from accessing the notices in time and challenging the demand order dated 30.11.2023. The GST department contended that it had no control over how notices were displayed on the portal, which was managed by GSTN, and that the notices were technically available. However, the bench led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra ruled that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt and had been denied a fair opportunity to respond.
Tvl.Silver Cloud Estates Private Limited vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 304
The Madras High Court recently held that a GST assessment order is unenforceable if proper notice is not served on the taxpayer. In the case of Silver Cloud Estates Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner challenged an assessment order passed without their knowledge, arguing that the GST department had merely uploaded notices under the ‘View Additional Notices’ section of the portal without personal delivery or registered post. The petitioner, a construction company, had already filed returns and paid taxes for FY 2018-19, but was unaware of discrepancies raised by the department due to lack of proper notice.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq ruled that uploading notices on the portal alone does not amount to valid service and set aside the assessment order. The Court granted the petitioner a final opportunity to present objections, provided 25% of the disputed tax is deposited within four weeks.
M/s. MATAJI HARDWARE vs Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 261
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order against Mataji Hardware due to procedural lapses, including the delayed upload of a show cause notice on the GST portal, which denied the petitioner a fair chance to respond. The petitioner was hospitalized at the time and unaware of the notice, resulting in their absence during the assessment proceedings for AY 2022–23. The Court noted that no personal hearing was granted, and the belated notice violated principles of natural justice. During the hearing, the petitioner offered to deposit 10% of the disputed tax to seek reconsideration, while the department demanded 25%. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy directed that the matter be remanded for fresh adjudication, subject to a 20% pre-deposit within four weeks.
Tvl.Jainsons Castors and Industrial Products vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 211
The Madras High Court granted relief to Tvl. Jainsons Castors and Industrial Products, a supplier of trailers and purpose-built vehicles, who had missed participating in GST assessment proceedings due to unawareness of the notices uploaded on the GST portal. Challenging the assessment order for AY 2012-13, Jainsons argued that they were not properly served with DRC-01 notices or personal hearing opportunities, as all communications were uploaded digitally without direct intimation, leaving them unable to present their case. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, acknowledging the procedural lapse, allowed the petitioner a fresh opportunity to explain the discrepancies related to mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The Court directed Jainsons to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks and submit objections accordingly.
Tvl Ponnusamy vs The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 191
The Madras High Court recently condoned a 78-day delay in filing an appeal under the GST Act, citing the petitioner’s lack of awareness regarding notices uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner, Ponnusamy, a taxpayer who relied on a part-time accountant to file returns, did not have direct access to the portal and was unaware of a notice dated 10.11.2020 that highlighted mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the delay was justified due to the petitioner’s lack of knowledge and emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over procedural technicalities.
Tvl.J.S.Enterprises vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-I CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 123
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order passed against a taxpayer accused of fraudulently availing ITC based on bogus invoices, discovered during an inspection under Section 67 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that notices in Form DRC-01A and DRC-01 were not properly served through channels like Registered Post (RPAD) but were instead uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, which went unnoticed. As a result, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to respond or participate in the adjudication process.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, acknowledging the procedural lapse and citing the precedent in M/s. K. Balakrishnan, Balu Cables, set aside the order and directed that the petitioner be given a personal hearing. The petitioner was ordered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, with any amounts already recovered adjusted accordingly.
Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham vs The Authority CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 120
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that service of GST notices or orders solely through the GST portal or newspaper publication, without prior personal delivery, registered post, or email, violates Section 169 of the GST Act, 2017, and principles of natural justice. The ruling came in a batch of writ petitions where the petitioners argued they were unaware of notices since they were only uploaded on the portal. Many had relied on tax practitioners who registered their own contact details, leaving the assessees uninformed.
While the State contended that service through the portal is valid and that Section 169 allows for disjunctive application of service modes, the Court disagreed. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu ruled that the initial modes of service under clauses (a) to (c) are mandatory and must be exhausted before resorting to alternate modes.
M/S Anshuman Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2567
The Allahabad High Court quashed a GST order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) after finding that the FAA had recorded an incorrect fact, stating that the assessee failed to respond to notices or seek adjournment. The petitioner, Anshuman Singh, submitted that a notice dated October 10, 2024, had fixed a personal hearing for October 29, 2024, and an adjournment request was duly filed on October 28, 2024, both reflected on the GST portal. Despite this, the FAA wrongly recorded that no such response was made. Acknowledging the factual error, the State’s Standing Counsel did not oppose the petition. Justice Ajit Kumar set aside the FAA’s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the FAA on or before January 2, 2025, and instructed the authority to fix a new hearing within two weeks and pass a reasoned and detailed order within one month.
R.Ramesh vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-I CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2543
The Madras High Court granted a final opportunity to petitioner R. Ramesh, a government contractor, to explain discrepancies arising from mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-9C, suppression of outward supply, and unpaid tax on rental income. Ramesh contended that the notices were uploaded only on the GST portal and not served personally or via registered post, leaving him unaware of the proceedings. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq set aside the impugned order, allowing the petitioner one final chance, subject to a 25% pre-deposit of the disputed tax within four weeks. The Court directed that the order be treated as a show cause notice and allowed the petitioner another four weeks to file objections.
SRT Fuels vs The Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2542
The Madras High Court granted a final opportunity to SRT Fuels to address a mismatch of ₹10.22 lakh in ITC under IGST between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for the assessment year 2018–19. The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 27.04.2024, claiming that while returns were duly filed and taxes paid, they were unaware of the proceedings due to improper service of notices, which were uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal. As a result, the petitioner did not respond to the notices or attend the scheduled personal hearing.
Relying on the precedent set in M/s. K. Balakrishnan, Balu Cables, the petitioner requested reconsideration subject to a pre-deposit. Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad allowed the plea, set aside the impugned order, and directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks.
Ashwa Air Technologies vs State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2487
The Madras High Court has allowed re-adjudication in a case involving discrepancies in ITC claims and non-reversal of ITC for credit notes, subject to a 25% pre-deposit of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner challenged the assessment order passed by the State Tax Officer for the financial year 2020-21, arguing that it was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was contended that the assessment order and prior notices were uploaded only on the GST portal without proper service, which prevented them from participating in the proceedings.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, hearing the matter, set aside the impugned order and directed that the petitioner deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. The Court also ordered the withdrawal of garnishee proceedings upon payment of the deposit and clarified that failure to comply with the directions would result in the restoration of the original order.
New Fathima Medicals vs The Deputy Commissioner CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2479
The Madras High Court has directed a fresh hearing on a dispute involving discrepancies in the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by a medical shop proprietor under the reverse charge mechanism. The discrepancies were found between the ITC availed in Tables 4.A.(2) + 4.A.(3) of GSTR-3B and the tax liability declared in Table 3.1d of the same form. The GST authorities had issued notices through Forms DRC-01A and DRC-01, along with reminders and a personal hearing opportunity. The petitioner contested the order, claiming improper service of notices and difficulties accessing the GST portal, which hindered their participation in the proceedings. Considering the petitioner’s request for a fresh opportunity to explain the discrepancies and their willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a precondition for reassessment, Justice Mohammed Shaffiq set aside the impugned order.
Ramesh Associates vs State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2474
The Madras High Court granted a final opportunity to Ramesh Associates, a petitioner providing works contract services, to address discrepancies related to non-payment of interest on delayed GST payments and mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for the 2017-18 financial year. The issues were identified during a surprise inspection on July 4, 2023. The petitioner failed to respond to notices issued in September 2023, claiming that the notices and the assessment order were only uploaded on the GST portal and not properly served. The petitioner sought an opportunity to explain the discrepancies, referencing a previous case where a similar matter was remanded after a 25% deposit of the disputed tax. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq set aside the original order, directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, and allowed for filing objections within the prescribed time. The GST department was instructed to adjudicate the matter afresh after a fair hearing.
M/s.Sugos Steel Traders vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2468
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order related to the 2020-2021 financial year, instructing a fresh hearing due to discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The petitioner, M/s. Sugos Steel Traders, a registered dealer in iron, steel, and M.S. scraps, faced scrutiny over mismatches in their returns. Despite filing returns and paying taxes, discrepancies emerged during scrutiny, leading to a show cause notice issued on February 7, 2024, followed by three reminders in the GST portal. The petitioner neither replied nor paid the tax, resulting in an assessment order issued on May 16, 2024. During the hearing, the petitioner requested an opportunity to address the discrepancies and offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The court agreed, directing the deposit and allowing the petitioner to file objections within four weeks after the deposit. If deadlines were missed, the original assessment order would be reinstated.
M/s.Summit Exim vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2465
The Madras High Court recently granted a personal hearing with a pre-deposit requirement for a petitioner, M/s. Summit Exim, who faced an order for short payment of GST due to an excess Input Tax Credit ITC claim. The court noted that the petitioner was not provided a proper hearing, as the communications, including an ASMT-10 intimation on May 2, 2023, and a DRC-01 notice on August 28, 2023, were only uploaded on the GST portal, with no direct service via Registered Post. As a result, the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings. Citing a precedent, the petitioner requested the matter be remanded for fresh consideration, offering to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq set aside the original order, directing the deposit and allowing the petitioner to file objections within four weeks, after which the adjudicating authority must pass a fresh order after a fair hearing.
M/s.Sneh Communications vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2466
The Madras High Court recently directed the GST department to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner on a TCS mismatch between GSTR-8 and GSTR-1. The assessment identified discrepancies, including output mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1, TCS mismatch between GSTR-8 and GSTR-1, and ITC variations between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. Despite receiving an intimation in Form DRC-01 on January 31, 2024, and a hearing opportunity on July 18, 2023, followed by a reminder on March 21, 2024, the petitioner failed to respond or attend. The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were only uploaded on the GST portal, not physically served, leaving them unaware of the proceedings. Relying on a precedent, the petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq set aside the original order, directing the deposit and allowing the petitioner to file objections.
Mr.Mohan Gokulraj vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2387
The Madras High Court granted an opportunity for hearing to a petitioner who received notices regarding discrepancies in ITC and RCM liability in their GSTR-3B returns. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST Act for the 2018-19 period, filed returns and paid the appropriate taxes. However, discrepancies were found between the ITC reported in columns 4A(2)(3) and the RCM liability in column 3.1(d) of the GSTR-3B. The petitioner argued that the notices were only uploaded on the GST portal and not served via tender or Registered Post, leaving them unaware of the proceedings. Relying on a precedent, the petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and sought an opportunity to address the discrepancies. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq set aside the original order, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount within four weeks, after which the order would act as a show-cause notice.
Tvl.Deepa Traders vs The Deputy Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2269
The Madras High Court condoned a 285-day delay in filing a GST appeal by Tvl. Deepa Traders, a wholesale paint business in Chennai. The petitioner missed a critical GST notice issued by the State Tax Officer (STO) in December 2022 due to the notice being uploaded solely on the GST portal and not served physically. In February 2023, the STO issued a demand order, but the petitioner only became aware of it when recovery actions were initiated. After filing a delayed appeal, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed it due to the delay, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the absence of a physical notice. The court, acknowledging the lack of physical notification, deemed it a reasonable cause for the delay and allowed the appeal to be processed as if filed on time, granting a personal hearing.
M/s.Sri GK Industries vs The Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2093
The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that 41% of the disputed tax had already been recovered and the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner, Sri GK Industries, challenged the order issued in DRC-07 on 26.04.2024, after submitting a reply on 22.04.2024, which was allegedly overlooked by the respondent. The court ruled that failing to consider the reply and denying a personal hearing violated principles of natural justice. The court also noted that the petitioner had already paid a significant portion of the disputed amount. Consequently, the court remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh reply and the GST department to issue a 14-day notice for a personal hearing before passing new orders. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
SADHNA KOHLI vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2033
The Delhi High Court recently set aside a GST demand order due to the inaccessibility of the SCN on the GST portal. The petitioner, Sadhna Kohli, filed a petition challenging the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed not to have received the SCN dated 26.09.2023 and could not respond due to limited access to the GST portal, as her registration had been canceled. She also argued that the SCN was not easily accessible on the portal, as it was placed under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab, which she couldn’t easily locate. The court noted that the portal’s redesign now ensures notices are more accessible. The court set aside the demand order, directing the petitioner to reply to the SCN with relevant documents and allowing the adjudicating authority to review the case after hearing the petitioner.
M/s.SKV Industries vs The Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC)GST Appeal CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1888
The Madras High Court condoned a 5-day delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority (AA) due to the petitioner’s unawareness of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) notice posted only on the GST web portal. SKV Industries, the petitioner, was unaware of the assessment order as it was only uploaded on the portal, causing the delay. The appeal was initially dismissed by the Appellate Authority due to the delay. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal, arguing that no personal notice was issued. The Revenue’s counsel acknowledged that no personal hearing was given but defended the delay by stating that the notices were uploaded on the portal. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, after considering both sides, condoned the 5-day delay and directed the Appellate Authority to take the appeal on record, hear the case, and pass an appropriate order based on the merits and the law.
Tvl. Zen Machine Tools vs The State Tax Officer -1 CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1859
The Madras High Court directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) department to conduct a fresh adjudication in a case where notices were only uploaded on the GST portal, and the petitioner was not given a proper hearing. The petitioner challenged an order demanding ₹1,86,476 for tax, penalty, and interest for the assessment years 2021 and 2022. The petitioner’s counsel, argued that the notices were only available under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal, and the petitioner was unaware of them until a bank attachment notice was received on February 15, 2024. By then, the disputed tax amount had already been recovered.
The court found that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. The court set aside the order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, and directed the immediate defreezing of the petitioner’s bank account.
SANJAY GUPTA vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1800
The Delhi High Court directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) authority to re-adjudicate theSCN issued to the proprietor of M/s Jsr Gems and Jewellery, due to issues with the accessibility of the notice on the GST portal. The SCN, dated 08.12.2023, was uploaded under the category “View Additional Notices & Orders,” which the petitioner claimed was not easily accessible. The petitioner argued that the SCN should have been placed under the “View Notices & Orders” section. This issue had been addressed in a previous case, where the court ruled that uploading notices under the “Additional Notices” category does not meet the service requirements under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The court referred to a ruling by the Madras High Court, which had also addressed similar concerns regarding the placement of notices under separate headings. Following this, the GST portal was redesigned to place both the ‘View Notices’ and ‘View Additional Notices’ tabs next to each other under one heading. ince the impugned SCN was issued before the redesign, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the concerned authority for fresh adjudication.
Tvl.Fashion Square vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1773
The Madras High Court ruled that no order under the GST regime can be passed without granting a fair opportunity to the assessee, thereby setting aside a GST demand and attachment order against Fashion Square. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that all notices were uploaded only under the “Additional Notices/Orders” section of the GST portal, which the petitioner may not have accessed. This failure to provide proper notice and a personal hearing amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court held that merely uploading notices on the portal, without following the procedure under Section 169(1)(a)(b)(c) of the GST Act or issuing a physical copy, deprived the assessee of the chance to file objections and defend its case. The Court set aside the orders, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks, after which the attachment must be lifted. The case underscores the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in GST adjudication.
Sukanta Pal vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1722
The Calcutta High Court condoned a 66-day delay in filing a GST appeal by a small businessman, citing his lack of proper knowledge of the GST portal. The appeal, filed under Section 107 of the Central and West Bengal GST Acts, had earlier been rejected by the appellate authority on the ground of limitation. The petitioner had filed the appeal along with a mandatory pre-deposit of ₹63,278 and had also submitted an application on April 3, 2024, seeking condonation of delay. The court noted that the petitioner had acted bona fide and that no benefit was gained by filing the appeal late. The delay was attributed to the petitioner’s limited understanding of the online filing process, which the Court found reasonable given his small business background. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that the appellate authority had failed to properly consider the petitioner’s grounds for condonation and erroneously rejected the appeal strictly on technical grounds, claiming the delay exceeded the one-month extendable period. The Court held that procedural rigidity should not defeat substantive justice, especially when no malafide intent was evident.
Tvl. K V M Textiles vs The Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1649
The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand order against K V M Textiles, which had confirmed tax liability based on the assumption that sales turnover was 110% of purchase turnover, without giving the assessee adequate opportunity to contest it. The assessee contended that the show cause notice and related communications were only available under the “view additional notices and orders” tab on the GST portal and not served through any other mode, and that a personal emergency had prevented timely response.
The Court, finding merit in the argument and observing that natural justice was violated as the order was passed without a hearing, ordered reconsideration of the case. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy directed the assessee to pay 10% of the demand within 15 days and allowed submission of a reply to the show cause notice, following which the department must issue a fresh order.
Mitali Saha vs State of West Bengal & Ors CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1549
The Calcutta High Court directed the petitioner, Mitali Saha, to challenge the GST adjudication order dated December 6, 2023, before the appellate authority, after noting that the failure to receive the Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73 of the CGST Act was due to a GST portal issue. The SCN and adjudication order were uploaded under the “view additional notices and orders” tab rather than the standard “view notices and orders” section, which made it difficult for the petitioner to access them due to the portal’s earlier complex design. This resulted in an ex parte order and subsequent bank account attachment. While the respondent claimed that email communications had clearly indicated the location of the SCN on the portal, the Court acknowledged the confusion caused by the portal’s design and allowed the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days. The appellate authority was directed to consider the delay and dispose of the appeal on merits within 12 weeks.
Tvl. Harshini Exports vs The State Tax Officer CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1544
The Madras High Court set aside and remanded a GST order against Harshini Exports, which had estimated outward supply at 110% of purchase value by invoking Rule 30 of the CGST Rules, 2017, on the condition of a 10% pre-deposit. The assessee, engaged in textile trading, argued that purchases were made in FY 2017–18 but major sales occurred in the following year, and compliance was handled by a consultant.
The petitioner claimed unawareness of the proceedings as notices were only uploaded in the “view additional notices and orders” tab of the GST portal and not otherwise communicated, discovering the matter only upon receiving a bank attachment notice in May 2024. While the GST department maintained that due process was followed, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s submissions and held that the order violated principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy directed a fresh consideration of the matter upon 10% payment of the disputed tax demand.
M/s. Dhirani Metal Industries vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Broadway Assessment Circle CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1453
The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand order and remanded the matter for reconsideration due to a mismatch between the GSTR-3B return and the auto-populated GSTR-2A, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The petitioner argued they were unaware of the proceedings since the show cause notice and assessment order were only uploaded in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal. Despite filing GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C to rectify the mismatch before the assessment order was passed, their rectification petition was rejected, and ₹3,54,558 (tax, interest, and penalty) was appropriated from their bank account in March 2024. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the petitioner had submitted the necessary returns and that the entire liability had already been recovered. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply within two weeks and ordered the department to grant a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within three months.
Ace Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1446
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order against Ace Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd., citing a breach of natural justice as the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings since the show cause notice and order were only uploaded on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal without other communication. The tax demand arose from an inadvertent error in the GSTR-3B return, where Input Tax Credit was wrongly entered under the RCM column. The petitioner, willing to remit 10% of the disputed amount, sought a chance to contest the demand. Observing that the dispute pertained solely to ITC, the court allowed a fresh assessment, directing the petitioner to pay the 10% within two weeks and permitting a reply to the show cause notice, while instructing the department to provide a personal hearing and issue a new order within three months.
Thiashola Plantation vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1436
The Madras High Court set aside GST assessment orders for 2018-19 and 2019-20 against M/s. Thiashola Plantation P. Ltd., citing denial of a fair opportunity to contest tax demands arising from a mismatch between GSTR-3B and auto-populated GSTR-2A. The petitioner claimed unawareness of proceedings as the show cause notices and orders were only uploaded on the GST portal without being served via registered post or email. The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s inability to respond and participate in the hearing and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing a 10% pre-deposit for each year. The petitioner was permitted to reply to the notices, and the authorities were instructed to provide a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within three months.
GLAMOUROSE vs The Commercial Tax Officer CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1405
The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand order due to the petitioner, GLAMOUROSE, being unaware of the proceedings and not having an opportunity to contest the tax demand. The petitioner challenged the orders, asserting that notices were only uploaded on the GST portal and not communicated through other means. The petitioner argued that, if given a chance, they could explain discrepancies between the GSTR-3B return and the GSTR-1 statement. The petitioner also agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for remand. The court observed that the tax proposal, based on the disparity between the returns, was confirmed due to the petitioner’s lack of response. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, with the petitioner required to pay 10% of the disputed tax within two weeks and allowed to submit a reply.
M/s. Ragul Steels vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-I CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1401
The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand order and granted a fresh hearing opportunity in a case involving a mismatch between purchase and sales turnover, subject to a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax. The petitioner challenged the order dated 23.12.2023 on the ground that the show cause notice and the impugned order were uploaded only on the GST portal and not communicated through any other mode, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The tax proposal was based on discrepancies in purchase and sales turnover, and the petitioner claimed they were unaware of the proceedings. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy found merit in the petitioner’s claim of lack of proper communication and absence of hearing. The impugned order was set aside on the condition that 10% of the disputed tax be paid within 15 days from receipt of the order.
M/s. The Tile Bros vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1266
The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by The Tile Bros challenging a GST order dated 31st August 2023 on grounds of breach of natural justice. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the proceedings as the intimation, show cause notice, and impugned order were only uploaded on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal and not communicated through conventional means. The petitioner also argued that the show cause notice lacked specific details about the tax demand and sought a fresh opportunity to clarify discrepancies between GSTR-3B returns and GSTR-2A. During the hearing, it was revealed that the petitioner had already remitted ₹90,000 toward the tax liability, exceeding 10% of the disputed demand. The Court directed that the impugned order be treated as a show cause notice and granted the petitioner two weeks to submit a reply. The respondent was instructed to verify if the ₹90,000 remittance pertains to the disputed tax demand.
M/s. Jinvar Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1265
The Madras High Court, in a recent ruling, remanded for reconsideration of a GST demand arising from a mismatch between GSTR-3B returns and GSTR-1 statements allegedly caused by GST being calculated at 36% for certain items. The case involved Jinvar Trading, which challenged an order dated 30th October 2023 on the grounds of a breach of natural justice, stating they were unaware of the proceedings as all notices were uploaded only on the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal. The petitioner attributed the lapse to a failure on the part of their part-time accountant to check the portal. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that ₹68,677 had already been recovered from their electronic credit ledger, forming a substantial portion of the disputed tax amount, and sought a fair chance to contest the tax liability. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, after considering the mismatch and the absence of a response from the petitioner, held that the confirmation of tax liability warranted reconsideration given the significant recovery already made.
UDAYRAJ YADAV PROPRIETOR-ZENITH CREATIVE SERVICES vs SALES TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1202
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand of ₹12,92,704 against the petitioner and held that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was wrongly uploaded under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal in non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had not received the SCN through any direct correspondence and remained in the dark about the proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that since the notice, uploaded only in the “User Services” column, was disregarded, there was no scope for response opportunity. This contention was reinforced through the East Coast Constructions decision, wherein the Madras High Court had emphasised the concerns with the categorisation of notices in a similar fashion. Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja noted that the petitioner missed the SCN due to its placement on the portal and observed that the impugned order was passed only because the petitioner did not respond. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Bombay Hardware Pvt. Ltd VS The Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1166
The Madras High Court directed the GST department to issue a fresh assessment order after conducting an enquiry into the SCN (Show Cause Notice) uploaded in the ‘Additional Notices’ tab. Bombay Hardware Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the GST assessment order on the grounds of procedural irregularities that violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner, represented by Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, argued that the SCN was posted in the “View Additional Notices” tab, instead of the standard “View Notices” tab, which prevented them from effectively contesting the proceedings. The petitioner also paid 10% of the tax demanded by the respondent. Citing the Sabari Infra Pvt. Ltd. case, the bench of Justice P.B. Balaji set aside the order and directed the GST department to issue a fresh assessment order within eight weeks, as the petitioner had already made the pre-deposit.
Mr.Panjatcharam Kumaravel vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-I CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1164
The Madras High Court allowed the petitioner, Panjatcharam Kumaravel, to contest a GST order concerning the misplacement of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in GSTR-3B, conditional on a 10% pre-deposit. The petitioner, engaged in the business of sweets and snacks distribution, challenged the order in Form GST DRC-07 issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer. He argued that he couldn’t respond to notices as they were uploaded under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST Portal, which he didn’t access. The court observed that the petitioner had failed to notice the discrepancies in his returns and the subsequent notices. Despite the government’s contention that the petitioner was duly notified, the court quashed the impugned order, allowing the petitioner to pay 10% of the disputed tax. The Assessing Officer was instructed to reassess and issue a fresh order within six weeks, after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
Tvl. Sri Manikandan Plywoods vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1165
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed sought for quashing a GST assessment order and related recovery notices after observing a procedural lapse in the service of the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The petitioner contended that the SCN was uploaded under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal instead of the standard “View Notices” tab, depriving them of a fair opportunity to respond. Relying on the precedent in Sabari Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), the Court noted the violation of natural justice principles. Justice P.B. Balaji directed that the petitioner deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a precondition, after which the case should be re-examined.
UMANG REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1163
The Delhi High Court Division Bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, allowed a petitioner to file a response to a GST Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, represented by advocates Puneet Agrawal and others, claimed they were unaware of the proceedings as the SCN was uploaded under “Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal and not communicated by any other means. Citing precedents from Madras High Court judgments (East Coast Constructions and Murugesan Jayalakshmi), the Court observed that such misplacement deprived the petitioner of a fair hearing. It directed the GST portal to be reopened for two weeks to allow the petitioner to file a reply. The Court also mandated that a proper hearing be given and a fresh order be issued per Section 75(3) of the Act. The impugned order was set aside, and re-adjudication was ordered accordingly.
Narie Constructions Private Limited, vs The State Tax Officer, CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1028
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order after the petitioner claimed they were unaware of the proceedings, as the Show Cause Notice dated 19.05.2023 was uploaded only in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal without alternate modes of communication. Represented by Mr. B. Sivaraman, the petitioner argued this violated principles of natural justice and cited the case Sakthi Steel Trading v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), emphasizing the statutory requirement under Section 169 of the GST Act for proper service of notices. The petitioner also raised concerns over being granted only one personal hearing instead of the prescribed three. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the demand related to ineligible ITC on a car purchase was confirmed without a fair opportunity to explain the business need. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, conditional upon a 10% pre-deposit of the tax demand and submission of a reply within two weeks.
M/s.Navbharat Boilers vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1003
The Madras High Court ordered a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax for reconsidering a GST demand arising from the alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by Navbharat Boilers. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the proceedings, as the Show Cause Notice and related orders were only uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal without other modes of service. Their counsel argued that no personal hearing was granted, despite being referenced in the impugned order dated 16.08.2023. The Additional Government Pleader countered that sufficient opportunities had been given. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy found merit in the petitioner’s claim of lack of proper opportunity and set aside the order.
Tvl. Gayatri Granites Represented by its Partner VS The Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 990
The Madras High Court, while remanding a GST matter involving Gayatri Granites, mandated a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax and emphasized that taxpayers must regularly monitor the GST portal. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the petitioner, being a registered GST entity, is obligated to monitor the portal and found their explanation for non-response unconvincing. The petitioner claimed unawareness of the proceedings as notices were only uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab without other communication. The tax demand arose from a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The petitioner sought an opportunity to contest the demand and agreed to remit 10% of the tax. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
K.A. & Co vs The State Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 872
The Madras High Court held that ignorance of a SCN uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST Portal is not a valid excuse. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy emphasized that registered taxpayers must monitor the portal regularly. The case arose after an inspection in March 2023 led to a show cause notice dated 28.09.2023, which the petitioner failed to respond to, citing lack of proper communication. The petitioner argued the tax was wrongly calculated using the incorrect balance sheet year and claimed non-application of mind by authorities. The government contended that the petitioner had acknowledged liability for part of the tax earlier. Noting discrepancies in the financial year used for assessment, the Court found grounds for interference and directed a remand.
MAPLE ODC MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 797
The Delhi High Court set aside a service tax demand order of ₹1.21 crore under the CGST Act, 2017, and directed re-adjudication, granting the petitioner 30 days to reply to the show cause notice. Maple ODC Movers Pvt. Ltd. challenged the order, arguing they never received the notice as it was uploaded under the “Additional Notices” tab on the GST portal instead of the standard “Notices” section. The petitioner claimed unawareness of the notice and hearing date, learning of the demand only through a government officer during an official meeting. The Court observed the impugned order lacked reasoning and appeared to be passed in default due to non-response. The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days.
Sanjai Gandhi vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (ST) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 785
The Madras High Court allowed Sanjai Gandhi to contest a GST demand order on the condition of remitting 10% of the disputed tax amount. The case arose from discrepancies in GST returns related to the supply of water purifiers and related services. Although the petitioner responded to an initial notice (Form GST ASMT 10) issued on 13.12.2021, further intimations or show cause notices were allegedly uploaded only on the GST portal without proper service. The confirmed tax demand was based on mismatches in the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed versus GSTR 2B data. The petitioner argued that they were not given a fair opportunity to respond and expressed willingness to deposit 10% of the disputed amount. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy set aside the impugned order.
SIMLA HOLDINGS vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX DIVISION ROHINI, DELHI WEST AND ORS CITATION:2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 473
The Delhi High Court directed tax authorities to upload a GST order on the common portal after Simla Holdings was unable to file an appeal due to non-communication of the order. The petitioner argued that the order was neither uploaded on the GST portal nor served physically, as their office premises were sealed under SARFAESI Act proceedings. A copy of the order was only obtained from the respondent’s office, which, according to the petitioner, does not constitute valid service for appeal purposes. The Court held that uploading the order on the GST portal is essential for enabling the petitioner to file an appeal. A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja directed the respondents to upload the order, and clarified that the limitation period for filing the appeal would begin from the date of uploading.
Failure to Respond on SCN due to Missing Receipt of Notice from GST Portal: Delhi HC directs Re Adjudication
ANHAD IMPEX THROUGH ITS PARTNER vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WARD 16 ZONE 2 DELHI CITATION:2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 442
The Delhi High Court ordered re-adjudication in a case where Anhad Impex failed to respond to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) due to its non-receipt from the GST portal. The petitioner contended that the SCN was uploaded under “Additional Notices” instead of the usual “Notices” section, making it difficult to locate. As a result, the petitioner could not reply, leading to a demand order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondent argued that uploading the SCN on the portal satisfies Section 169 requirements. However, the Court noted that the impugned order was passed without any reply or appearance by the petitioner and emphasized the need for fair opportunity. A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside the order and directed the portal be reopened for the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days.
Mr.V.S.K. Traders & Services vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 202
The Madras High Court quashed an order cancelling the GST registration of Mr V S K Traders & Services due to lack of a hearing opportunity. The petitioner, who regularly filed GST returns until March 2022, was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and had no outward supply for six months. Upon business recovery, the petitioner was surprised to find their GST registration cancelled. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the show cause notice was only uploaded on the GST portal and not communicated in other ways, preventing a timely response. The Court found the cancellation order issued mechanically, with a reference to a reply that was never given. Noting the lack of a reasonable opportunity to respond, the Court directed the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice within three weeks.
M/s. Thirumalai Sales Corporation vs The Assistant Commissioner (Circle) CITATION:2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1964
The Madras High Court quashed an order initiated by the Revenue against Thirumalai Sales Corporation for non-filing of GST returns, leading to the cancellation of their GST registration. The Revenue had issued a show cause notice and personal hearing notice on 09.07.2021, uploading them on the GST Portal. However, since the petitioner’s GST registration was already canceled, they could not access the portal and were unaware of the notices. The petitioner contended that the notices should have been served through physical means, not just the portal. The Revenue argued that despite the cancellation, the petitioner continued business, prompting the issuance of notices. The Court found that serving notices solely via the GST Portal violated principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was denied an opportunity to respond. Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy set aside the impugned orders.
SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) CITATION:2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1508
The Madras High Court allowed SRM Engineering Construction Company Limited to file a statutory appeal, despite missing the deadline, due to a staff shortage that hindered monitoring the GST portal. The company failed to respond to a notice issued on 19.12.2022, resulting in discrepancies in their GST returns, leading to an assessment order on 23.02.2023. The time limit for filing an appeal expired on 22.06.2023, but the company argued that their limited staff did not regularly check the portal for updates. They only became aware of the demand after receiving a recovery notice in July 2023 and filed a representation on 27.07.2023, which was ignored. The court cited a Supreme Court decision and condoned the 58-day delay, instructing the company to file the appeal within 30 days.
KODUVAYUR CONSTRUCTIONS vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-WORKS CONTRACT CITATION:2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1386
The Kerala High Court upheld the cancellation of GST registration for Koduvayur Constructions and ruled that it is the responsibility of the assessee to monitor the GST portal regarding GST registration cancellations. The petitioner, who was registered under the CGST/SGST Acts, believed it had no further liability after its GST registration was canceled on 30.09.2021. However, it was served with a demand for Rs. 19,22,566 on the GST portal. The petitioner contended that it was not properly served with a notice as required under the CGST Act and argued that the demand was unjustifiable. Section 169 of the CGST Act stipulates the manner of serving notices. Justice CS Dias observed that it was the petitioner’s duty to monitor the GST portal and dismissed the writ petition, finding the petitioner’s claim regarding improper service of notice to be untenable.
SSB Petro Products & Ors vs The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax CITATION:2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 758
The Calcutta High Court allowed the filing of a time-barred appeal in the case of SSB Petro Products & Ors., after the department uploaded Form GST DRC-01 to the GST portal, which was missed by the assessee. The appellants challenged the Senior Joint Commissioner’s order rejecting their appeal as time-barred. They were served with an intimation under Sections 73(5) and 74(5) of the GST Act on 05.03.2021, and the matter was left pending. The appellants were unaware of the Form GST DRC-01 uploaded on 16.09.2021, and only discovered it after a payment was made from their electronic credit ledger. The court noted that the first respondent had not finalized the matter, and the second respondent initiated fresh proceedings. The court held that the appeal should not be treated as time-barred, setting aside the appellate authority’s order and directing the appeal to be heard on merits.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
