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
Suriya Cement Agency vs State Tax Officer,
Whether rejection of a Rectification Application filed by the assessee under Section 161 of the CGST/TNGST Act — without giving any reasons as to why no error is apparent on the face of record and without affording a personal hearing — is sustainable,
BackgroundAn Assessment Order dated 20th December 2023 was passed against the Pe...
Read MoreMukesh Kumar Garg vs. Union of India & Others
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a penalty order under Section 74 read with Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, when the petitioner — alleged mastermind of a fake ITC network of 28 firms — claims he is not a taxable person and that penalty,
BACKGROUNDThe Department conducted a detailed investigation and found that the p...
Read MoreSuresh Kumar vs Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Validity of service of GST order and limitation for passing order; effect of delayed uploading of DRC-07 (Section Involved: Section 169, Section 107, Section 73, Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017)
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged two GST orders and corresponding DRC-07 for...
Read More