In two cases, the Madras High Court set aside ex parte orders on part deposit, directing officers to use other Section 169 modes such as RPAD when portal notices draw no response.

The Madras High Court has held that although uploading a notice on the GST portal is sufficient service, an officer who receives no response must explore the other modes of service in Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, preferably RPAD. [Mayur Industries and Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tamil Nadu, 2026-juristway.com-3133-HC(Madras)-GST; Unik Infra v. Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Porur Assessment Circle, Poonamallee, 2026-juristway.com-3137-HC(Madras)-GST]

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy decided both writ petitions. In each, the Government Advocate fairly admitted that no personal hearing had been given before the order was passed.

The Court observed that an ex parte order passed on such formalities only leads to multiplicity of litigation. Without other modes being tried, it said, the upload “will not be an effective service, rather, it would only amount to fulfilling the empty formalities.”

Mayur Industries. The order dated 20 Feb 2025 related to 2020-21 and alleged incorrect declaration of liability in GSTR‑3B. The petitioner’s registration had been cancelled on its own application from 30 Jun 2024, and the show cause notice (SCN) was uploaded afterwards without physical service. The Court added that communications after voluntary cancellation should have gone to the e-mail ID the petitioner had provided. The order was set aside subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within four weeks.

Unik Infra. The order dated 15 Apr 2024 was passed after the petitioner’s consultant failed to see the portal notices. Part of the demand denied credit as time-barred under Section 16(4). Following its common order of 17 Oct 2024 in W.P. Nos. 25081 of 2023 batch on Section 16(5), the Court quashed that part outright. The remaining issues were remanded subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, with the bank attachment to be released on proof of payment.

In both cases, the petitioner must reply within three weeks of payment, and the officer must give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits. No costs were awarded.

2026-juristway.com-3133-HC(Madras)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3137-HC(Madras)-GST