Sathiah Ramesh Vs Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) (Madras High Court)
The writ petition challenged the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent concerning disputed GST dues. The petitioner argued that all notices and communications related to the case were uploaded on the GST common portal, and they were unaware of these uploads. As a result, the petitioner could not file a response in time, and the impugned order was passed without a personal hearing. The petitioner further stated that more than 25% of the disputed tax had already been recovered and requested the Court to allow an opportunity to present their case.
The respondents, represented by Additional Government Pleaders, admitted that no personal hearing was provided but maintained that notices were uploaded on the GST portal and the petitioner failed to respond. After considering the submissions, the Court observed that while uploading notices on the portal is a valid mode of service, it does not constitute effective service if the taxpayer is unaware of it. The Court noted that the officer issuing repeated notices should have explored alternative modes of service, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD), as prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, to ensure effective communication and avoid mere formal compliance.
