Facts:Search and inspection proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 06.01.2021 under Section 67(2) of the RGST Act pursuant to authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner. Based on the search proceedings, a show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 was issued and an order dated 05.06.2023 was passed by the proper officer. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST Act, which was dismissed on 11.12.2023 by the Appellate Authority.Court Decision:The High Court held that the authorization for inspection and search under Section 67 of the RGST Act was issued by the same officer who later acted as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 while deciding the appeal arising out of those proceedings. The Court observed that such dual exercise of power violates the principle of natural justice that no person should be a judge in his own cause.Accordingly, the appellate order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 107 of the RGST Act was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction that the appeal be decided afresh by a competent appellate authority other than the officer who authorized the search proceedings.
Ramjilal Mohanlal vs. Union of India & Ors. 29-01-2026
Facts:Search and inspection proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 06.01.2021 under Section 67(2) of the RGST Act pursuant to authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner. Based on the search proceedings, a show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 was issued and an order dated 05.06.2023 was passed by the proper officer. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST Act, which was dismissed on 11.12.2023 by the Appellate Authority.Court Decision:The High Court held that the authorization for inspection and search under Section 67 of the RGST Act was issued by the same officer who later acted as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 while deciding the appeal arising out of those proceedings. The Court observed that such dual exercise of power violates the principle of natural justice that no person should be a judge in his own cause.Accordingly, the appellate order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 107 of the RGST Act was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction that the appeal be decided afresh by a competent appellate authority other than the officer who authorized the search proceedings.
Facts:The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 28.10.2022 after issuance of a show cause notice dated 12.10.2022 alleging that the registration had been obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice explaining the circumstances, including that the business had already been discontinued. Despite this, the authority cancelled the registration without addressing the reply or providing proper reasons.Court Decision:The High Court observed that the show cause notice was a cyclostyled notice without specific allegations and that there were serious discrepancies between the allegations in the show cause notice and the reasons recorded in the cancellation order. The authority had not considered the petitioner’s reply or provided any particulars of defects or objections.The Court held that the authority acted in a casual and mechanical manner without properly exercising jurisdiction under the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 cancelling the GST registration was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner’s GST registration was restored.
Om Enterprises vs. Union of India & Ors. 29-01-2026
Facts:The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 28.10.2022 after issuance of a show cause notice dated 12.10.2022 alleging that the registration had been obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice explaining the circumstances, including that the business had already been discontinued. Despite this, the authority cancelled the registration without addressing the reply or providing proper reasons.Court Decision:The High Court observed that the show cause notice was a cyclostyled notice without specific allegations and that there were serious discrepancies between the allegations in the show cause notice and the reasons recorded in the cancellation order. The authority had not considered the petitioner’s reply or provided any particulars of defects or objections.The Court held that the authority acted in a casual and mechanical manner without properly exercising jurisdiction under the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 cancelling the GST registration was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner’s GST registration was restored.
Facts:The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed under Section 107 of the GST Act on the ground of delay. Against the original order dated 12.08.2024, the petitioner had filed a rectification application under Section 161 on 05.11.2024 which was rejected on 19.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on 25.03.2025.Court Decision:The Court held that the rectification application filed under Section 161 and its disposal is a relevant factor for computing the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107. The limitation would start from the date of rejection of the rectification application.Since the rectification application was rejected on 19.03.2025 and the appeal was filed on 25.03.2025, the appeal was within time. The appellate authority failed to consider this aspect and erroneously rejected the appeal as time-barred. The Court therefore quashed the appellate order dated 25.04.2025 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh after granting opportunity of hearing.Cases Referred by Court:· SPK and Co. v. State Tax Officer, W.P.(MD) No.27787 of 2024, Madras High Court, Order dated 22.11.2024
New Kailash Suppliers vs State of Gujarat & Ors. 29-01-2026
Facts:The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed under Section 107 of the GST Act on the ground of delay. Against the original order dated 12.08.2024, the petitioner had filed a rectification application under Section 161 on 05.11.2024 which was rejected on 19.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on 25.03.2025.Court Decision:The Court held that the rectification application filed under Section 161 and its disposal is a relevant factor for computing the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107. The limitation would start from the date of rejection of the rectification application.Since the rectification application was rejected on 19.03.2025 and the appeal was filed on 25.03.2025, the appeal was within time. The appellate authority failed to consider this aspect and erroneously rejected the appeal as time-barred. The Court therefore quashed the appellate order dated 25.04.2025 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh after granting opportunity of hearing.Cases Referred by Court:· SPK and Co. v. State Tax Officer, W.P.(MD) No.27787 of 2024, Madras High Court, Order dated 22.11.2024
Facts:The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 12.06.2024 proposing levy of tax and penalty for the tax periods 2018-19 to 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the notice before the High Court contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued covering multiple assessment periods or financial years.Court Decision:The High Court held that assessment proceedings for each taxation period or financial year must be initiated through separate show cause notices. Since the impugned notice covered multiple taxation periods in a single show cause notice, the Court set aside the notice following the earlier judgment of the same Court. The writ petition was allowed with liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:• S.J Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Uber India Systems Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors. 28-01-2026
Facts:The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 12.06.2024 proposing levy of tax and penalty for the tax periods 2018-19 to 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the notice before the High Court contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued covering multiple assessment periods or financial years.Court Decision:The High Court held that assessment proceedings for each taxation period or financial year must be initiated through separate show cause notices. Since the impugned notice covered multiple taxation periods in a single show cause notice, the Court set aside the notice following the earlier judgment of the same Court. The writ petition was allowed with liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:• S.J Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 11 February 2025 passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with the show cause notice dated 13 November 2024, were quashed and set aside.The Court held that Section 75(7) of the Act, 2017 mandates that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice and no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in the notice.In the present case, the show cause notice did not quantify any interest for the period April 2020 to March 2021, though interest was later imposed in the adjudication order. The Court held that failure to quantify interest in the show cause notice, despite the relevant period being known to the authorities, was in contravention of Section 75(7).The contention of the GST authorities relying on Section 75(9), that interest is payable whether or not specified in the order, was rejected. The Court held that Section 75(9) applies to non-specification of interest in the order determining tax liability, and not to non-quantification in the show cause notice.Liberty was granted to the authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law and proceed afresh.Cases Referred by Court:Vrinda Automation vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Writ Tax No. 2006 of 2025, decided on 14 May 2025
Ziva Auto Sales Thru. Prop. Akhand Pratap and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. State Tax Lko. and Another 28-01-2026
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 11 February 2025 passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with the show cause notice dated 13 November 2024, were quashed and set aside.The Court held that Section 75(7) of the Act, 2017 mandates that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice and no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in the notice.In the present case, the show cause notice did not quantify any interest for the period April 2020 to March 2021, though interest was later imposed in the adjudication order. The Court held that failure to quantify interest in the show cause notice, despite the relevant period being known to the authorities, was in contravention of Section 75(7).The contention of the GST authorities relying on Section 75(9), that interest is payable whether or not specified in the order, was rejected. The Court held that Section 75(9) applies to non-specification of interest in the order determining tax liability, and not to non-quantification in the show cause notice.Liberty was granted to the authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law and proceed afresh.Cases Referred by Court:Vrinda Automation vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Writ Tax No. 2006 of 2025, decided on 14 May 2025
BACKGROUNDThe petitioner, engaged in works contract and construction services, was subjected to audit proceedings which resulted in a Show-Cause Notice for alleged non-payment of tax for the period April 2018 to March 2019. An adjudication order was passed confirming a tax demand under Section 73 of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed an application under Section 161 of the GST Act for rectification of the said order, which was rejected. Being constrained by the lapse of the time limit under Section 107 to challenge the original adjudication order directly, the petitioner filed an appeal against the rectification rejection order. The First Appellate Authority rejected this appeal as time-barred vide order dated 17.09.2025. Recovery proceedings were subsequently initiated, followed by garnishee proceedings against a third party. The petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition. CRUCIAL FACTSThe adjudication order confirming demand was passed on 30.04.2024 under Section 73. The petitioner filed a rectification application on 06.05.2024 under Section 161 of the GST Act. This application was rejected on 17.01.2025. The petitioner then filed an appeal under Section 107 on 21.02.2025 against the rectification rejection order, which was admitted on 01.03.2025. However, the First Appellate Authority issued a show-cause notice as to why the appeal should not be rejected as time-barred, and after hearing, rejected the appeal vide order dated 17.09.2025 as beyond the period prescribed under Section 107. Recovery notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 19.12.2025 and garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-09 dated 02.01.2026 were thereafter issued. The petitioner's core argument before the High Court was that the period of limitation for the appeal should be reckoned from the date of the rejection of the rectification application (17.01.2025) and not from the date of the original adjudication order, and that the rectification order merges with the original order thereby keeping the appeal window open. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim — Crucial)On Maintainability of Writ when GSTAT is functional:"Having found that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can very well be taken as ground of appeal before the Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter wishes to relegate the Petitioner to avail the alternative remedy."On the General Principle of Writ vs. Statutory Forum:"It is no longer res integra that the Writ Court can be approached assailing an order for which the forum of appeal is provided and the same is entertainable in the event the forum is not made functional or constituted as the person cannot be rendered remediless. Equally it is true that if conditions are attached to filing an appeal before such forum, the Writ Court shall ensure strict compliance thereof as a person cannot steal a march taking a shelter that there is no inhibition in the writ Court in entertaining the writ petition and passing an order taking departure from the said statutory provision."On GSTAT being now functional:"Since the forum has already been provided in the statute, which is now made functional and the period for filing the appeal has been specified in the above Notification/Circular/Order, it would not be proper for the Writ Court to keep such writ petitions pending as the dispute raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition can be adjudicated by the said forum."On No Opinion on Merits:"This Court makes it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits on the Orders impugned in the writ petition." FINAL VERDICTThe writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112 of the GST Act, after depositing the pre-deposit amount as required under Section 112(8), within the timelines prescribed in the Government Notification S.O. No. 4220(E) dated 17.09.2025. No opinion expressed on merits. Recovery proceedings not stayed.👐 FLAT (Neither relief granted nor petition dismissed on merits — relegated to GSTAT)
Monte Carlo Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), 22-01-2026
BACKGROUNDThe petitioner, engaged in works contract and construction services, was subjected to audit proceedings which resulted in a Show-Cause Notice for alleged non-payment of tax for the period April 2018 to March 2019. An adjudication order was passed confirming a tax demand under Section 73 of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed an application under Section 161 of the GST Act for rectification of the said order, which was rejected. Being constrained by the lapse of the time limit under Section 107 to challenge the original adjudication order directly, the petitioner filed an appeal against the rectification rejection order. The First Appellate Authority rejected this appeal as time-barred vide order dated 17.09.2025. Recovery proceedings were subsequently initiated, followed by garnishee proceedings against a third party. The petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition. CRUCIAL FACTSThe adjudication order confirming demand was passed on 30.04.2024 under Section 73. The petitioner filed a rectification application on 06.05.2024 under Section 161 of the GST Act. This application was rejected on 17.01.2025. The petitioner then filed an appeal under Section 107 on 21.02.2025 against the rectification rejection order, which was admitted on 01.03.2025. However, the First Appellate Authority issued a show-cause notice as to why the appeal should not be rejected as time-barred, and after hearing, rejected the appeal vide order dated 17.09.2025 as beyond the period prescribed under Section 107. Recovery notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 19.12.2025 and garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-09 dated 02.01.2026 were thereafter issued. The petitioner's core argument before the High Court was that the period of limitation for the appeal should be reckoned from the date of the rejection of the rectification application (17.01.2025) and not from the date of the original adjudication order, and that the rectification order merges with the original order thereby keeping the appeal window open. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim — Crucial)On Maintainability of Writ when GSTAT is functional:"Having found that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can very well be taken as ground of appeal before the Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter wishes to relegate the Petitioner to avail the alternative remedy."On the General Principle of Writ vs. Statutory Forum:"It is no longer res integra that the Writ Court can be approached assailing an order for which the forum of appeal is provided and the same is entertainable in the event the forum is not made functional or constituted as the person cannot be rendered remediless. Equally it is true that if conditions are attached to filing an appeal before such forum, the Writ Court shall ensure strict compliance thereof as a person cannot steal a march taking a shelter that there is no inhibition in the writ Court in entertaining the writ petition and passing an order taking departure from the said statutory provision."On GSTAT being now functional:"Since the forum has already been provided in the statute, which is now made functional and the period for filing the appeal has been specified in the above Notification/Circular/Order, it would not be proper for the Writ Court to keep such writ petitions pending as the dispute raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition can be adjudicated by the said forum."On No Opinion on Merits:"This Court makes it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits on the Orders impugned in the writ petition." FINAL VERDICTThe writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112 of the GST Act, after depositing the pre-deposit amount as required under Section 112(8), within the timelines prescribed in the Government Notification S.O. No. 4220(E) dated 17.09.2025. No opinion expressed on merits. Recovery proceedings not stayed.👐 FLAT (Neither relief granted nor petition dismissed on merits — relegated to GSTAT)
Facts:Search and investigation proceedings were conducted by different GST authorities against the petitioners relating to alleged tax evasion in the manufacture and sale of scented tobacco and pan masala products. Subsequently, composite show cause notices dated 30.09.2025 and 04.10.2025 were issued under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Acts covering multiple financial years and involving more than one noticee. The petitioners challenged the notices contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued for multiple financial years or for multiple noticees and that the proceedings were also barred under Section 6(2)(b) due to parallel action by different authorities.Court Decision:The High Court examined the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, including the definitions of “tax period”, provisions relating to filing of returns, and the adjudication mechanism under Sections 73 and 74. The Court noted that the limitation for adjudication orders under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) is linked to the due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year.Considering the divergent views expressed by different High Courts on the issue of composite show cause notices for multiple financial years, the Court held that the challenge raised in the batch of petitions required detailed examination of statutory provisions and precedents. The matters were therefore considered together, and the Court addressed the legal questions regarding the permissibility of composite show cause notices, applicability of Section 6(2)(b), and jurisdiction of different authorities.Cases Referred by Court:State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd.Dhananjaya Reddy vs. State of KarnatakaCIT vs. Anjum M.H. GhaswalaMehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. State of GujaratMaharao Bheem Singh of Kota vs. CITState of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.State of U.P. vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.B. Prabhakar Rao vs. State of Andhra PradeshPramur Homes and Shelters vs. Union of IndiaMathur Polymers vs. Union of IndiaMilroc Good Earth Developers vs. Union of IndiaTitan Company Ltd. vs. Joint CommissionerR.A. & Co. vs. Additional Commissioner of Central TaxesTharayil Medicals vs. Deputy CommissionerState of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Caltex (India) Ltd.G.K. Trading Company vs. Union of IndiaArmour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGSTSangeeta Singh vs. Union of IndiaPalm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Magar Girme and Gaikwad AssociatesGrasim Industries Ltd. vs. Collector of CustomsR.K. Ispat Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaX.L. Interiors vs. Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence)Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaDelhi Foils vs. Additional CommissionerRiocare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST
S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. 20-01-2026
Facts:Search and investigation proceedings were conducted by different GST authorities against the petitioners relating to alleged tax evasion in the manufacture and sale of scented tobacco and pan masala products. Subsequently, composite show cause notices dated 30.09.2025 and 04.10.2025 were issued under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Acts covering multiple financial years and involving more than one noticee. The petitioners challenged the notices contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued for multiple financial years or for multiple noticees and that the proceedings were also barred under Section 6(2)(b) due to parallel action by different authorities.Court Decision:The High Court examined the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, including the definitions of “tax period”, provisions relating to filing of returns, and the adjudication mechanism under Sections 73 and 74. The Court noted that the limitation for adjudication orders under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) is linked to the due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year.Considering the divergent views expressed by different High Courts on the issue of composite show cause notices for multiple financial years, the Court held that the challenge raised in the batch of petitions required detailed examination of statutory provisions and precedents. The matters were therefore considered together, and the Court addressed the legal questions regarding the permissibility of composite show cause notices, applicability of Section 6(2)(b), and jurisdiction of different authorities.Cases Referred by Court:State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd.Dhananjaya Reddy vs. State of KarnatakaCIT vs. Anjum M.H. GhaswalaMehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. State of GujaratMaharao Bheem Singh of Kota vs. CITState of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.State of U.P. vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.B. Prabhakar Rao vs. State of Andhra PradeshPramur Homes and Shelters vs. Union of IndiaMathur Polymers vs. Union of IndiaMilroc Good Earth Developers vs. Union of IndiaTitan Company Ltd. vs. Joint CommissionerR.A. & Co. vs. Additional Commissioner of Central TaxesTharayil Medicals vs. Deputy CommissionerState of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Caltex (India) Ltd.G.K. Trading Company vs. Union of IndiaArmour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGSTSangeeta Singh vs. Union of IndiaPalm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Magar Girme and Gaikwad AssociatesGrasim Industries Ltd. vs. Collector of CustomsR.K. Ispat Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaX.L. Interiors vs. Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence)Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaDelhi Foils vs. Additional CommissionerRiocare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Facts:The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 30.05.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act alleging suppression of taxable value and short payment of CGST for the period April 2018 to March 2024. The petitioner contended that the notice illegally clubbed multiple financial years in a single show cause notice.Court Decision:The Court held that under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, assessment and recovery of tax are linked to specific tax periods and financial years. The Act prescribes limitation under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) separately for each financial year, based on the due date of filing the annual return.The Court relied on earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court holding that consolidation of multiple financial years in a single show cause notice is not permissible, as it aggregates different tax periods having separate limitation periods and statutory treatment.Accordingly, the show cause notice dated 30.05.2025 was quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the authorities to issue fresh notices strictly in accordance with Section 74 of the CGST Act, if there is no other legal impediment.Cases Referred by Court:· Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition No. 2203 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Goa Bench)· Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur & Ors., Writ Petition No. 466 of 2025 (Bombay High Court)· Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 2394 of 2025 (Delhi High Court)· Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada, Nagpur v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf Tumsar, 1978 (2) ELTJ 624 (Bombay)
Marfani Steel Impex, through its proprietor Mohammed Irfan Marfani vs The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Nagpur & Ors. 17-01-2026
Facts:The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 30.05.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act alleging suppression of taxable value and short payment of CGST for the period April 2018 to March 2024. The petitioner contended that the notice illegally clubbed multiple financial years in a single show cause notice.Court Decision:The Court held that under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, assessment and recovery of tax are linked to specific tax periods and financial years. The Act prescribes limitation under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) separately for each financial year, based on the due date of filing the annual return.The Court relied on earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court holding that consolidation of multiple financial years in a single show cause notice is not permissible, as it aggregates different tax periods having separate limitation periods and statutory treatment.Accordingly, the show cause notice dated 30.05.2025 was quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the authorities to issue fresh notices strictly in accordance with Section 74 of the CGST Act, if there is no other legal impediment.Cases Referred by Court:· Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition No. 2203 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Goa Bench)· Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur & Ors., Writ Petition No. 466 of 2025 (Bombay High Court)· Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 2394 of 2025 (Delhi High Court)· Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada, Nagpur v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf Tumsar, 1978 (2) ELTJ 624 (Bombay)
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
A. M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. 17-01-2026
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
Facts:The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.09.2025 by which the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. The demand order dated 21.03.2024 under Section 74(5) of the CGST/SGST Act raised tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner filed the appeal under Section 107 after a delay of about 284 days and sought condonation of delay stating that the order on the portal was not noticed due to lack of computer knowledge.Court Decision:The Court held that under Section 107(1) an appeal must be filed within three months and under Section 107(4) the appellate authority may condone delay only for an additional period of one month. Once the maximum period of 120 days is exhausted, neither the appellate authority nor the High Court can condone the delay.Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the Court held that the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to extend limitation beyond the statutory period prescribed by the statute. As the appeal was filed after 284 days and beyond the maximum permissible period, the writ petition was dismissed and the order of the appellate authority was upheld. Cases Referred by Court:· Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681· Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 42· Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors.· Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited· Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.· Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited v. Electricity Department represented by its Superintending Engineer, Port Blair & Ors.· Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409· A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602· Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584· Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996· Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India· Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.· Phoenix Plasts Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-I), Bangalore· Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (Full Bench, Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Agrawal Enterprises vs State of Gujarat & Ors. 16-01-2026
Facts:The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.09.2025 by which the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. The demand order dated 21.03.2024 under Section 74(5) of the CGST/SGST Act raised tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner filed the appeal under Section 107 after a delay of about 284 days and sought condonation of delay stating that the order on the portal was not noticed due to lack of computer knowledge.Court Decision:The Court held that under Section 107(1) an appeal must be filed within three months and under Section 107(4) the appellate authority may condone delay only for an additional period of one month. Once the maximum period of 120 days is exhausted, neither the appellate authority nor the High Court can condone the delay.Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the Court held that the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to extend limitation beyond the statutory period prescribed by the statute. As the appeal was filed after 284 days and beyond the maximum permissible period, the writ petition was dismissed and the order of the appellate authority was upheld. Cases Referred by Court:· Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681· Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 42· Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors.· Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited· Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.· Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited v. Electricity Department represented by its Superintending Engineer, Port Blair & Ors.· Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409· A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602· Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584· Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996· Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India· Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.· Phoenix Plasts Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-I), Bangalore· Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (Full Bench, Andhra Pradesh High Court)
