WP/40122/2026 of Rajdeep Digital Prints LLP Vs The Deputy Commissioner CT on 9 October 2026

Order

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.11.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent initiated proceedings alleging that the petitioner had not declared the correct tax liability while filing its returns in Form GSTR-3B. Subsequently, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled upon the taxpayer's application with effect from 17.10.2024. The petitioner was under the bona fide impression that all proceedings concerning the GST registration had come to an end and that there were no further proceedings requiring its immediate attention, particularly regarding online communications. Under such circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed. The petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity to place its explanation and supporting documents before the respondent prior to the passing of the impugned order. He further contends that the mandatory requirement of an effective personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act has not been complied with, and that the order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. Further, she would submit that the respondent has already recovered the entire disputed tax amount from the petitioner. Hence, she requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent had uploaded the notices on the GST online portal, but the petitioner failed to avail of the said opportunity. However, he fairly admitted that no opportunity of a personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. Furthermore, since the notices were issued subsequent to the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent, and also perused the materials available on record.

6. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the specific tab of the GST portal. According to the petitioner, they were not aware of the issuance of the said show-cause notice via the portal, as it was issued subsequent to the cancellation of their GST registration, and the physical copy of the said notice was never served upon them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording an opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby confirming the proposals contained in the show-cause notice.

7. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that 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 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.

8. 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 is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.

9. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has already recovered entire amount of disputed tax amount from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned order dated 28.11.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.

(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 receipt of a copy of this order.

(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.

10. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP.No.45043/2026 is ordered and WMP.No.45045/2026 is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK To

1. The Deputy Commissioner CT GST Appeals, Tiruppur

2. The Assistant Commissioner Tiruppur North 1 Assessment Circle, Tiruppur

3. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Tiruppur North 1 Assessment Circle, No. 42, Kumaran Road, 2nd Floor, Commercial Taxes (Annex) Building, Tiruppur 641 601

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. SK WP No. 40122 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 45043 OF 2026,WMP NO. 45045 OF 2026 09-10-2026