WP/40172/2026 of KGK Engineners Private Ltd Vs The State Tax Officer on 14 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 26.05.2026 and 07.04.2026 passed by the first respondent.

2. Ms.Amirtapoonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.05.2026 is the duplication of the passed on 07.04.2026 for the same issue and the tax amount. Hence, both orders are challenged. He further submits that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the a “View Additional Notices and Orders” column of the GST common portal. Since the petitioner, who was looking after affairs of the company, was suffering from severe heart ailments and was awaiting a cardiac transplantation, he failed to file a reply within time. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders came to be passed by the respondents without providing any opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, these petitions have been filed.

4. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents and has also made an endorsement to that effect in the case bundle. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondents by setting aside the impugned orders.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents had uploaded the notices on the GST Online Portal, but the petitioner failed to avail of the said opportunity. Further, she fairly admits that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. Therefore, she requests this Court to remit the matter back to the respondents, subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. 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 him and due to his heart ailments, he was not able to reply and proceed further. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment orders came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.

8. No doubt, sending a notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, despite of the fact that there is no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer 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.

9. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to a 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 a lack of effort in applying the available opportunities to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively on the petitioner.

10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 07.04.2026 and the duplicated order dated 26.05.2026 passed by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned order dated 07.04.2026 and the duplicated order 26.05.2026 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned orders will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.

(ii) The petitioner shall file his 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 respondents 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.

11. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 14-10-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No ham To

1. The State Tax Officer, Kodumudi Assessment Circle, 2nd Floor, Commercial Taxes Building, N.P. Road, Karur – 639 001.

2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kodumudi Assessment Circle, 2nd Floor, Commercial Taxes Building, N.P.Road, Karur - 639 001.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. HAM W.P.Nos.40172 & 40510 of 2026 AND W.M.P.Nos.45106, 45107, 45460 & 45463 of 2026 14-10-2026