Supreme Agro Foods, vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC),

WP No. 44941 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 44941 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012641582026}
AND
WMP NO. 50446 & 50449 OF 2026
Supreme Agro Foods,
Represented by its Partner, Mathimaran Preethi,
No.1148/1C2, Mussaravakkam
Village,Kanchipuram Taluk,
Tamilnadu - 631 551.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC),
Kancheepuram Rural Assessment Circle,1st
Floor, Commercial Tax Office,Collectorate
Campus, Kancheepuram - 631 501.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT),
GST Appeal, Kancheepuram,Taluk Office
Building,Collectorate Campus,
Kancheepuram - 631 501.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of impugned
order under Section 73 dated 29.12.2025 having Reference No.
ZD331225432950M passed by the 1st respondent for the financial year 2021-22
and Appeal rejection order having Reference No. ZD330826201889Z dated
21.08.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal,
erroneous on facts and violative of principles of Natural Justice and
consequently direct the second respondent to condone the delay in filing the
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:55 pm )

WP No. 44941 of 2026
appeal and thereby directing to consider the matter afresh on merits after
providing an opportunity of personal hearing
For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Parthiban
For Respondent(s): Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, SGP
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment
order dated 29.12.2025 and the impugned appeal rejection order dated
21.08.2026 passed by the respondents.
2. Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice
on behalf of the respondent.
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal
at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all
notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common
portal. Since the petitioner had failed to view the portal, they were not aware of
the said notices, due to which, they failed to file their reply within the time.
Under these circumstances, the impugned assessment order came to be passed
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:55 pm )

WP No. 44941 of 2026
st
by the 1 respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to
the petitioner. Aggrieved over the said order, an appeal was preferred by the
nd
petitioner, however, the said appeal was rejected by the 2 respondent, vide
rejection order dated 21.08.2026, on the aspect of limitation. Hence, this
petition has been filed.
5. Further, he would submit that the petitioner has already paid 10% of
the disputed tax amount and now, he is ready and willing to pay additional 15%
of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to
st
grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the 1
respondent by setting aside the impugned assessment order order.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online
Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, she has
fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the
petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, she requested this
Court to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 15%
of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:55 pm )

WP No. 44941 of 2026
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and
also perused the materials available on record.
8. 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. In such
circumstances, 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, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
9. 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 no
response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., 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
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:55 pm )

WP No. 44941 of 2026
the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate
Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
10. 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 lack of efforts in exploring the available opportunities to
serve the notices/orders etc., effectively on the petitioner.
11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 15% of the disputed tax amount to the
respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the
impugned appeal rejection order dated 21.08.2026 and set aside the impugned
assessment order dated 29.12.2025. Accordingly, this Court passes the
following order:-
(i) The impugned rejection order dated 21.08.2026
nd
passed by the 2 respondent is quashed.
(ii) The impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2025
st
is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1 respondent for
fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:55 pm )

WP No. 44941 of 2026
15% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent, within a
period of four 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 three
weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the
st
petitioner, the 1 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.
12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.50449 of 2026 is closed.
The miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.50446 of 2026, which has been filed to
dispense with the production of original assessment order, is ordered.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsa
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:55 pm )

WP No. 44941 of 2026
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC),
Kancheepuram Rural Assessment Circle,1st
Floor, Commercial Tax Office,Collectorate
Campus, Kancheepuram - 631 501.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT),
GST Appeal, Kancheepuram,Taluk Office
Building,Collectorate Campus,
Kancheepuram - 631 501.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:55 pm )

WP No. 44941 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
nsa
WP No. 44941 of 2026
AND
WMP NO. 50446 OF 2026,WMP NO. 50449 OF 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:55 pm )