Facts of the Case

Tvl. Sun Chemical Oil Industries challenged two assessment orders dated 18.02.2025 (tax period 2020-21) and 23.10.2025 (tax period 2021-22) passed by the State Tax Officer, Tuticorin. The petitioner's GST registration had been voluntarily cancelled with effect from 11.01.2022 on its own request. All subsequent notices and communications regarding these two tax periods were uploaded only on the GST common portal; the petitioner claimed it remained unaware of them and could not respond, resulting in ex parte orders confirming the demands.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether uploading notices only on the GST portal, after a taxpayer's registration has been voluntarily cancelled, amounts to effective service.
  2. Whether ex parte assessment orders passed in such circumstances should be set aside.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Since registration was already cancelled, all communications should have gone to the email ID on record, but the respondent failed to do so, relying solely on the portal.
  • The petitioner was willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to secure a fresh opportunity in each case.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The notices had been uploaded on the GST portal, but no opportunity of personal hearing was in fact given prior to either order; considering the notices were issued after cancellation of registration, the department did not oppose remand on payment of 10% of the disputed tax.

Court Order / Findings

  • Reiterating that an officer receiving no response to portal-uploaded notices should explore other prescribed modes under Section 169, particularly RPAD, the Court found that merely repeating portal uploads was an 'empty formality' that does not amount to effective service.
  • It was significant that the petitioner had voluntarily cancelled its registration — in such cases, communications should have been sent to the registered email address, which the respondent failed to do.
  • Both impugned orders dated 18.02.2025 and 23.10.2025 were set aside, on condition that the petitioner pay 10% of the disputed tax amount in each case within four weeks.
  • The petitioner was permitted to file its reply/objection within three weeks of payment, following which the respondent must issue a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing before passing fresh orders on merits.

Important Clarification

  • For a taxpayer whose GST registration has already been voluntarily cancelled, portal-only service is even less adequate than for an active registrant — the department is expected to use the taxpayer's registered email or other recorded contact details.
  • The 'explore alternate modes under Section 169' principle applies with added force once a registration is no longer active, since the taxpayer has diminished reason to monitor the portal.

Sections Involved

  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 — modes of service of notices/orders.
  • Section 29, CGST Act, 2017 — voluntary cancellation of registration.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee — both ex parte assessment orders are set aside on a 10% deposit condition each, with fresh hearings to follow.

Case Details

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.P.(MD) Nos. 36149 & 36150 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 28760 & 28771 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy; Order dated 17.12.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.