WP/38087/2026 of K PRABHAKARAN Vs The Assistant Commissioenr (ST)(FAC) on 5 October 2026

Common Order

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the assessment orders dated 09.07.2025 and 02.12.2025 in respect of the Financial Year 2021-2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Assistant Commissioner [ST] [FAC] issued a show cause notice dated 13.07.2022 for the Financial Year 2021-2022 alleging that there was a difference between the turnover declared in GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 and consequently passed the assessment order dated 09.07.2025 demanding a sum of Rs.5,28,396/-. Thereafter another show cause notice dated 24.09.2025 has been issued by the The State Tax Officer [ST] for the same issue alleging that there was a difference between the turnover declared in GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 for the Financial Year 2021-2022 and also by adding other three issues alleging excess availment of ineligible ITC with reference to GSTR-2A, availment of ineligible ITC under Section 17(5) and belated availment of ITC under Section 16(4). Since the petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice being issued by the respondent, he failed to file reply and consequently the impugned assessment order 02.12.2025 came to be passed demanding a sum of Rs.9,68,648/-, out of which a considerable amount of Rs.5,01,518/- has been recovered from the petitioner.

3. He would further submit that the petitioner had not received physical copies of either the show cause notice or the notice of personal hearing. The show cause notices were merely uploaded on the GST Portal, which the petitioner had no occasion to access. Even the impugned assessment orders dated 09.07.2025 and 02.12.2025 were uploaded on the GST Portal, without furnishing a physical copy to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was unaware of the impugned assessment orders being passed. Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned orders and directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to file their reply and provide an opportunity of personal hearing so that the petitioner would be able to substantiate their case.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that if this Court feels that the matter warrants reconsideration, appropriate orders may be passed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the impugned show cause notices were uploaded on the GST Portal. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notices through the GST Portal and a physical copy of the said show cause notices were not served on the petitioner. In such circumstances, when the respondent did not receive any reply/response from the petitioner to the show causes notice and when the statute provides for alternative modes of service of notice, it is incumbent upon the respondent to adopt an effective mode of service instead of repeatedly uploading the notices and reminders on the common portal. If such an effective mode of service has been adopted, the petitioner would have not been in a position to contend before this Court that the notices were not received. Furthermore, it is also evident that the issue already raised in show cause notice dated 13.07.2022 has once again been raised in the subsequent show cause notice dated 24.09.2025, pursuant to which the demand has been made.

7. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders came to be passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to establish their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and that it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits and in accordance with law.

8. For the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 09.07.2025 and 02.12.2025 passed by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court pass the following orders:-

(i) The orders impugned herein are set aside. The petitioner shall file their reply/objection to both the show cause notices dated 13.07.2022 and 24.09.2025 along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) Upon verification of the proof with regard to the payment of sum of Rs.5,01,518/- towards disputed tax made by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the petitioner’s reply by clubbing both the show cause notices 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.

9. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. There is no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions in W.M.P.Nos.42782 & 42786 of 2026 filed seeking to dispense with the production of the original impugned order are hereby ordered as prayed for and W.M.P.Nos.42784 & 42787 of 2026 filed seeking interim stay are closed. 05-10-2026 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rst To

1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Avadi Assessment Circle No.32, Integrated commercial Taxes Office Complex, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.

2. The State Tax officer(ST), Avadi Assessment Circle, Survey No.1275/3, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Tiruvallur Division, First Floor, Room No.123, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. rst WP No. 38087 of 2026 AND WP NO. 38091 OF 2026, WMP NO. 42782 OF 2026, WMP NO. 42784 OF 2026, WMP NO. 42786 OF 2026, WMP NO. 42787 OF 2026 05-10-2026 (2/2)