A. M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors.
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 18.11.2024 and the adjudication order dated 31.01.2025 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The contention of the petitioner was that the final order had been passed within less than three months from the issuance of the notice, contrary to the requirement under Sections 73(2) and 73(10) of the CGST Act.
Court Decision:
The Court held that Section 73(2) requires issuance of the notice at least three months prior to the outer time limit for passing the order under Section 73(10), and this period ensures that the assessee gets meaningful opportunity to file reply, seek personal hearing and avail the statutory options under Section 73 such as payment within thirty days.
The Court held that maintaining a minimum gap of three months between issuance of notice and passing of the final order is mandatory. Since the notice was issued on 18.11.2024 and the final order was passed on 31.01.2025, the gap was only about two months and thirteen days. The show cause notice and the order were therefore quashed and the matter was remanded to the authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Cases Referred by Court:
· C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST-Delhi-South & Ors., W.P.(C) 15508/2024, Delhi High Court, Order dated 29.10.2025
· Tata Play Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, W.P.(C) 4781/2025, Delhi High Court
· The Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner (ST Auditfac) & Ors., Writ Petition No.1463 of 2025, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Order dated 05.02.2025
Other Case Law
Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. vs Union of India & Others
Validity of Rule 39(1)(a) CGST Rules mandating same-month distribution of ITC by Input Service Distributor (ISD).
Facts :The petitioner, a telecom service provider with multiple GST registration...
Read MoreTvl. Fathima Traders vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Whether Input Tax Credit can be rejected solely on the ground that the supplier's GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect, without examining whether the purchaser had established genuine receipt of goods.
BackgroundThe petitioner challenged three assessment orders dated 05.06.2023 cov...
Read MoreAnchor Shipping Services v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Challenge to ex parte GST assessment orders on grounds of improper service and violation of natural justice
Facts :The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, was subjected to assessment proc...
Read More