WP/42235/2026 of M/S SRI SIVACHALAPATHI RICE MILL Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) on 14 October 2026

Order

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Assessment Order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the first respondent and the appeal rejection order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the second respondent.

2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notice, he failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned ex-parte order came to be passed by the first respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. However, subsequently, the petitioner came to know about the passing of the impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2023.

Immediately, he filed a rectification application on 23.03.2024. Thereafter, the same was rejected on 31.01.2025, against which, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected on 24.03.2026. He further submits that in the present case both the rectification application as well as the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, were rejected on the ground that the rectification application along with the documents can be considered only in the assessment proceedings. In such circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) appearing for the respondents would submit that in the present case, the orders under challenge before this Court are dated 29.12.2023 and dated 24.03.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, 50% of the disputed tax amount may be directed to be deposited.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed rectification application on 23.03.2024 and the same was rejected on 31.01.2025, against which, an appeal was filed and the same was rejected on 24.03.2026. Therefore, the petitioner has contested the matter effectively. However, the documents produced could not be considered in the rectification application, which was rejected by both the rectification officer as well as the Appellate Authority. He would further submit that though 70% of the tax amount has already been exempted, the petitioner is now willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. To that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the Court bundle. 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. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) for the respondents and also 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 them. Further, the petitioner has effectively contested the matter by filing a rectification application, which was rejected, against which, he filed an appeal and the same was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to file a reply or produce any documents before the rectification officer and the Appellate Authority. Such being the case, since the impugned order is an ex-parte order, even though the petitioner had already taken efforts to contest the matter before the Appropriate Authority, the same was rejected on account of the petitioner’s failure to reply to the assessing officer, 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, thereby confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.

8. 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 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 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 a lack of effort in applying the available opportunities to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.

10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that already 70% of the tax amount has been exempted and the petitioner is now 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 assessment order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the first respondent within a period of four (4) 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 two weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.

(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the first 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.

11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RSI To

1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), O/o. The Assistant Commissioner, Kangeyam Assessment Circle, Kangeyam Tiruppur.

2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeals), Tiruppur CT Division, Emperor Textiles Building,16, Indira Nagar 1st Street, Avinashi Road, Tiruppur - 641603.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. RSI WP No. 42235 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 47433 OF 2026 14-10-2026