OSM Projects Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (Madras High Court)
Summary : OSM Projects Private Limited challenged the GST assessment order dated 9 December 2025 before the Madras High Court. The company submitted that it had failed to check the GST common portal, where the department had uploaded its notices and communications, and consequently missed the deadline to respond. It sought a fresh opportunity to present its case and offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax. The department maintained that it had uploaded the notices and that the company had failed to respond. It acknowledged that no personal hearing had been granted and supported remand subject to the same payment.
The Court found that the assessment had confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice without giving the company an opportunity to be heard. It recognised that uploading notices to the GST portal is a valid mode of service. Where notices and reminders sent through one mode go unanswered, however, the officer should explore other modes of service under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgement due. The Court observed that passing an ex parte order after merely completing service formalities could lead to avoidable litigation.
The Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration on condition that the company pay 25% of the disputed tax within ten weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The assessment would stand set aside from the date of payment. The company was allowed three weeks from payment to file its reply or objections with supporting documents. On receipt of the reply, the authority must give 14 clear days’ notice of the personal hearing and pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the company. The writ petition was disposed of without costs. W.M.P. No. 47560 of 2026 was closed, and W.M.P. No. 47558 of 2026, seeking dispensation with production of the original assessment order, was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr.G.Meganathan, learned Junior Standing counsel, for Mr.S.Gurumoorthy, learned Senior Standing counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2.
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner had failed to view the portal, they were not aware of the said notices, due to which, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed.
5. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
8. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
9. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer, who is sending the repeated reminders, despite the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only amount to fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
10. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there has been lack of efforts in exploring the available opportunities to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively on the petitioner.
11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 09.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.
(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.47560 of 2026 is closed and the miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.47558 of 2026, which has been filed to dispense with the production of original assessment order, is ordered.
