DSTO is not above the law. A lesson to all

In case a person does not understand a particular simple language, the only solution is to teach him in a language which he understands well. I think the time is very apt to teach the required lessons to first level officers across India who adjudicate GST orders with improper invocation of right sections and who assume themselves to be above law. A time cannot be more appropriate than this, as things have already moved at first stage from bad to worse and at the second stage worse to worst. The need is real to curb further damages to the taxpayer as I am really perturbed to go through a recent order of the Madras High Court dated 13/02/2026 in WP (MD) 4195 of 2026. Tvl. SPR Enterprises Versus Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Madurai and Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai - 2026 (3) TMI 139 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

It may kindly be noted that WP stands for writ petition under article 226 and MD stands for Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. It is really very hard to note that the number of writs within the first 45 days of the calendar year 2026 reached exceeds 4000 meaning thereby on an average at least 100 writs are being filed in MADURAI BENCH itself which is a cause of concern in the interest of justice. It also speaks about the poor quality of orders against which such writs are preferred. It may also be noted that in a majority of cases, the writs are being entertained as the alternate remedy is not yet effective.

The GSTAT is in place only for name sake. I am unable to appreciate where the bug is but as on 28/02/2026 only 1753 e filed appeals have been filed in GSTAT portal, as against the 4,80,000 appeals which are required to be filed before 30/06/2026. Field formation do not change their mindset and forget the fact that they are not the final authority and any wrong orders passed by them is unproductive work on his part itself as ultimately he may be required to adjudicate again the same matter in a manner, not as per his wish but as per the directives.

Moving from commentaries to the main story, the DSTO has far exceeded his limits and has not even aware of the jurisdictional high court orders on identical matters. It is a fit case for Suo Moto consideration of contempt of court in case the High court Bench desires so, which the DSTO may not even aware.

The DSTO Melur assessment circle, Madurai has passed an order on 19/12/2024 for the financial year 2023-24 in a hurried manner by grossly violating the principles of natural justice. It may be noted that the DSTO had time limit to pass that order till 31/12/2027 and there was absolutely no hurry to pass such order which has been subsequently set aside and matter is remitted to the same officer for reconsideration in line with provisions of GST laws after ensuring compliance of natural justice. By passing such irrelevant order in a hurried manner has resulted in wasting the precious time of not only the tax officer himself but also that of the counsel for petitioner as well as that of the High Court itself for which the DSTO, Melur circle, Madurai must be made accountable because, we can not afford to allow this practice of gross violation of Section 75 (4) any more.

The operative portion is furnished below for creating necessary awareness amongst all concerned.

8. 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.

It should be noted that High Court Bench has been so generous on the tax officer, even though it was the prerogative of the Bench to pass strictures as well cost on the particular DSTO.

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

It may be concluded by stating that officers at the level of Commissioners and above who are entrusted with the work of reviewing the orders passed by lower authorities must not only focus on whether further appeal is required or not but must understand that the quality of adjudication orders passed by first level officers have deteriorated to such an extent that there is no scope for further deterioration.

Disclaimer: a) Views are personal b) There is no intention to criticise or hurt anyone concerned but apt language is used for required sensitisation of the issues only. c ) in case the message reaches all concerned in letter and spirit, the purpose of this article is fully achieved. d) It shall reduce avoidable litigation significantly.