Each and Every order in violation of Section 75 (4) deserves to be set aside.

We can only suggest a person who is planning to hit his head with the wall, not to do so as the wall will not have pain but the head will. In case the listeners take the stand that it is their head and pain is theirs, we do not have any option as even God may not save them from hitting their head in the wall. This is exactly what is happening on section 75 (4) by the field formation. I have been reiterating again and again that mere compliance of requirements of section 169 is not a great deal but compliance of section 75 (4) is a must in the interest of JUSTICE. Often the tax officials forget the fact that they are QUASI-JUDICIAL authorities but act an agent for collection of GST. It is not only the fact that no useful purpose is served when the adjudication order is set aside or quashed but it also affects the time, resource, energy as well as efforts of the tax officer himself apart from counsel for petitioner as well as respondent and more importantly that of Jurisdictional High Court where the precious time of the Court is wasted on procedural issues rather than legal interpretation.

As this happens to be my 100th article in TAXTMI during last 365 days, I am immensely happy to dedicate this article to my well-wisher and Senior, Sri G. Ramaswamy, the President of ICAI, New Delhi during 2011-12 who voluntarily supported me to grow in my career even without my seeking such support. Because of his motivation during his stay at New Delhi, I could focus on Indirect Taxation by associating myself with ICAI.

In yet another disheartening order, the State Tax Officer attached to Woraiyur Assessment Circle in Trichy, Tamil Nadu disregarded the physical reply to the Show Cause Notice which was filed in person by the taxpayer under the pretext that the reply was not uploaded in the portal. Non furnishing of reply in portal is a procedural violation whereas ignoring and disregarding the physical reply by merely stating that it was not replied through portal is to be viewed as inhuman act on the part of the State Tax Officer as he could have easily suggested the taxpayer to do so.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 16/02/2026 in WP (MD) 2286 of 2026 in the matter of Kathiravan Versus Commissioner of State Tax, Ezhilagar, Chepauk, Chennai and State Tax Officer, Tiruchirappalli - 2026 (3) TMI 144 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, Worayur passed orders by setting aside two of the orders passed by STO pertaining to 2017-18 and 2028-19. What I fail to understand is that how many more adjudication orders need to be set aside or quashed for making some efforts to reverse the present trend.

This reminds me of a real story wherein few villagers approached the NHAI Authorities to make arrangements of foot over bridge for manual crossing as already 20 persons have lost their life at that location. The reply was rude and shocking. Yes. I read in a Tamil Journal that the request was rejected by stating that foot over bridge is permissible as per norms only when the death toll crosses 50. Are we waiting for any such magic number of orders to be quashed in the days to come?.

The operative portion of the above high court order is furnished below to spread this message amongst all concerned,

7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notices were uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, upon receipt of the show cause notices, the petitioner has filed reply to the said show cause notices in person, without uploading the same in the portal. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment orders came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, stating that no reply was filed through portal and therefore, the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same are liable to be set aside.

By passing the above order the High Court has granted necessary relief to the taxpayer as the matter is remanded to the original adjudication authority. It is the prerogative of the Court to pass that order which is respected. But there are several loose ends now which need to be answered by the tax administrators at the highest level.

1. Is the STO correct in his stand in rejecting the physical reply?. Though reply through portal is suggested in procedures, how a small taxpayer having less than one crore turnover, running a grocery shop under high competitiveness operating on a very thin margin for survival can afford to have a Computer and an operator at his work place? Is the suggestions of jurisdictional high courts in several cases that manual reply should also be considered are not binding on STO, Worayur?.
2. Why the officers do not understand that orders passed in violation of section 75(4) are most likely to be set aside or quashed later?. Does the STO, Worayur believe that his orders are final and not appealable?.
3. Why even after setting up of various benches of GSTAT all over India, officers continue to pass orders which are easily appealable in GSTAT?.
4. Is the GST law meant for improving tax collections for growth of the country or it is only for making dealing tax professionals super rich?.
5. The Honorable Finance Minister who was so generous during September 2025 in rationalization of GST rates should not come forward for voluntary increase in thresh hold limits under GST with effect from 01/04/2027 to save MSME Sector from the harassment of tax officials?.

Disclaimer: The views are personal. Language used is taken from various high court judgements. There is absolutely no intention to criticize or hurt anyone. Article is written with the sole objective of possible reduction in avoidable litigation.