Background & IssueThe petitioner, proprietor of M/s Shivani Overseas, challenged a summons dated 03.11.2025 issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 in connection with an inquiry relating to M/s Midas Marketing Inc. The summons directed the petitioner to appear and produce bank statements, sales invoices, and ledgers. The summons was issued by the Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer in reliance upon Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (now CBIC). The core legal issue before the Court was whether the said circular was validly issued — specifically, whether the Board (CBIC) had the authority to assign functions to "proper officers" under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, or whether such power vested exclusively in the "Commissioner in the Board" as defined under Section 2(25) read with Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that only the "Commissioner in the Board" — being a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board — could assign such functions, and that the circular issued in the name of the "Board" was therefore without legal authority, rendering the summons issued thereunder void.Court's DecisionThe Court, after examining the statutory framework, held that there was no ground to interfere with the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017. It observed that since the Commissioner is admittedly a constituent part of the Board, the assignment of functions through the circular must be presumed to have been initiated at the level of the Commissioner in the Board and duly approved by the Board, as contemplated under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority — he merely relied upon the language of the preamble of the circular using the word "Board," without pleading or proving through documents that the required procedure under Section 168(2) was not followed. Applying the well-settled principle of presumption of validity of subordinate legislation — as reaffirmed in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006) 4 SCC 517, G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6 — the Court held that the onus lay on the petitioner to prove invalidity, which he failed to discharge.Most Relevant Court Observation"In law, we have to presume that the circular is valid and the onus is on the petitioner to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority or legal approval." The Court further observed: "The fact remains that it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is also a part of the Board. Once it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is part of the Board, and sub-section (2) of Section 168 contemplates that the assignment of functions to the Central Tax Officers is upon a proposal of the Commissioner in the Board, we see no reason to disbelieve that the same was not under the authority of the Commissioner, which was approved by the Board as required under sub-section (2) of Section 168."Cases ReferredState of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 | G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014 | Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6

Facts :The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 7 August 2024 and order dated 30 January 2025 confirming tax demand for alleged fraudulent availment of ITC. The Department’s case involved investigation against multiple entities allegedly availing fake ITC through non-existent firms, with the petitioner being one of the recipients. The petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN nor attend personal hearing despite notices being sent via registered email. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court raising issues of jurisdiction, service, and validity of consolidated SCN.Court Decision:The Court dismissed the writ petition holding that no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out. It held that personal hearing notices were duly served through registered email and the petitioner failed to participate in proceedings. The Court upheld that consolidated SCN for multiple financial years is permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, and that adjudication by a single authority in multi-notice cases is valid. It further held that issues raised required factual adjudication and the proper remedy was an appeal under Section 107. The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹1,00,000, with liberty granted to file appeal by 15 January 2026 with pre-deposit.Cases Referred:Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTIAssistant Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel LimitedMukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of IndiaSheetal and Sons v. Union of IndiaMHJ Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi South  

BACKGROUNDThe CGST Department (Delhi-South) conducted a scrutiny of the returns filed by the petitioner,  C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Private Limited, for Financial Year 2019-20 and alleged discrepancies in availment of Input Tax Credit. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 31st May, 2024 was issued raising a demand of Rs.11,85,45,612/-. As per Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023, the last date for issuance of the adjudication order under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act for FY 2019-20 was extended till 31st August, 2024. This meant that the SCN, mandatorily required to be issued at least three months prior to this outer limit (i.e., by 31st May, 2024), was not actually served on the petitioner on that date. The Department instead issued DRC-01 only on 12th August, 2024, citing a technical glitch as the reason. Furthermore, even the earlier dispatch on 3rd June, 2024 was made to the wrong address of the petitioner at Vasant Kunj — despite the fact that the petitioner's address had already been updated in the Department's own records on 15th May, 2024, i.e., prior to the dispatch. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the SCN as being barred by limitation under Section 73(2) read with Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)On the mandatory nature of the three-month period under Section 73(2):"A perusal of the above stated provisions would show that an order has to be passed by the 'proper officer' within a period of three years from the due date for furnishing the annual returns for the said financial year. For issuance of a show cause notice, at least three months' period prior to the time limit under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act would be available. Thus, the show cause notice has to be issued at least three months prior to the outer limit prescribed for passing of an order under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.""On the other hand, Section 73(2) of the CGST Act provides that at least three months prior to the outer limit of 3 years for passing an order under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, a notice is to be served.""While the purpose behind Section 73(10) of the CGST Act is to fix the date by which an adjudication order has to be issued, the purpose of Section 73(2) of the CGST Act is to ensure that at least three months is available to the taxable person for filing a reply to the show cause notice issued to them and for being heard in a proper manner. Thus, the time period between issuance of the show cause notice and the outer limit for passing of the order should be at least three months."On the three-month period being mandatory:"The three month's period prescribed in Section 73(2) of the CGST Act is mandatory when read with Section 73(10) of the CGST Act."On rejection of Department's technical glitch plea and wrong address:"The Department's stand that due to a technical glitch, the DRC-01 could not be issued on 31st May, 2024 but was reissued on 12th August, 2024 would not be tenable in law. Further, the impugned SCN dated 31st May, 2024 was not served to the Petitioner within the time limit prescribed in Section 73(2) read with Section 73(10) of the CGST Act. Moreover, even the address of the Petitioner at which the same has been communicated is the wrong address considering the amendment of the Petitioner's address was permitted by the Department on 15th May, 2024 itself.""The SCN dated 28th May, 2024 dispatched on 3rd June, 2024 cannot, therefore, be held to be within time in terms of Section 73(2) of the CGST Act."FINAL VERDICTWrit petition allowed. The SCN and any order passed consequent thereto stand quashed as the SCN was not served within the mandatory three-month period prescribed under Section 73(2) read with Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, and was additionally sent to the wrong address.

BackgroundA Show Cause Notice was issued on 25th September 2023 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, with no date for personal hearing fixed therein. The Petitioner filed its reply on 25th October 2023 with supporting documents. Thereafter, without affording a personal hearing, an impugned order dated 30th December 2023 was passed raising a demand of Rs. 15,39,686/-. The Petitioner, unable to challenge the order immediately due to a dispute with his GST Consultant (who had not informed the Petitioner of the order), filed a Rectification Application on 27th March 2024 under Section 161 of the Act. The Rectification Application was rejected on 28th June 2024 by a one-line mechanical order holding the application to be "unsatisfactory" without providing any reasons as to why no error was apparent on the face of the record. The Petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition challenging both the original demand order dated 30th December 2023 and the Rectification Order dated 28th June 2024.Relevant FactsThe Petitioner raised two distinct challenges. First, regarding the original demand order, the Petitioner contended it was passed without affording a personal hearing, as the SCN had not fixed any hearing date. The Revenue countered that the Petitioner had filed a reply, had an opportunity of hearing and an efficacious appeal remedy. The Court required the Petitioner to explain the delay through an additional affidavit — the explanation offered was a dispute with the GST Consultant which resulted in unawareness of the impugned order. Second, regarding the Rectification Order, the Petitioner contended that it was dismissed mechanically — without applying mind, without recording any reason as to why no error was apparent on the face of the record, and without affording the Petitioner a hearing before rejecting the application adversely. The Rectification Order merely stated: "I have gone through rectification application and observed that no error/mistake is apparent on record as such I reject the application for rectification" — without any elaboration or reasoning whatsoever.Third Proviso to Section 161 — Key Statutory Text:"Provided also that where such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification."Court Observations (Verbatim)"Considering the above as also the facts of the case, in the opinion of the Court no ground for entertaining the challenge against the impugned order has been made out as the Petitioner had an opportunity of filing a reply which it did. Further the delay is not sufficiently explained. The order is of December 2023 and the writ petition has been filed even after the limitation period for filing the appeal has lapsed."— Para 6 (on the original demand order — challenge rejected)"The above position of law is clear to the effect that it is necessary to afford a hearing to the assessee when the rectification order adversely affects the said assessee. The said position would also prevail when the rectification application has been preferred by the assessee and the same is being rejected without providing reasons for non-consideration/insufficiency of the grounds raised by the said assessee. This practice, in our view, would be in line with the intent of the third proviso to Section 161 of the Act which stipulates compliance with the principle of natural justice to protect the interest of the assessees."— Para 9 (Court's own finding on Section 161)"It is clear from a reading of the said order, that the same is a mechanical order passed without providing reasons as to why there is no error apparent on the face of the record."— Para 11 (on the Rectification Order dated 28th June 2024)From Suriya Cement Agency v. State Tax Officer (Madras HC, W.P.(MD) No. 7338 of 2024 — relied upon via HVR Solar):"The Provisio indicates that when an order is being made adverse to the assessee, then he should be given an opportunity of being heard when the rectification adversely affects any person. The principles of natural justice had been inbuilt by way of the 3rd Proviso to Section 161. If pursuant to a Rectification Application, if a rectification is made and if it adversely affects the assesse, Proviso 3 contemplates an opportunity of hearing to be given. However, when an Rectification Application is made at the instance of assessee and the rectification is being sought to be rejected without considering the reasons for rectification or by giving reasons as to why such rectification could not be entertained. It is also imperative that the assessee to be put on notice."— Para 8 of Suriya Cement Agency, as quoted in Para 8 of the present judgmentFinal VerdictOriginal Order — Against AssesseeChallenge to demand order dated 30.12.2023 refused. Delay not sufficiently explained; writ filed after appeal limitation period lapsed; petitioner had filed a reply.Rectification Order — For AssesseeRectification Order dated 28.06.2024 set aside as mechanical and without reasons. Fresh hearing directed; reasoned order to be passed thereafter.Appellate remedy of the Petitioner after the fresh rectification order is expressly kept open. Petition disposed of accordingly.Cases Referred by CourtHVR Solar Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 67 & Anr.Relied upon2025:DHC:2476-DB — Delhi High Court (Division Bench) — Considered the third proviso to Section 161 of the CGST Act; basis for the court's analysis in the present caseSuriya Cement Agency v. State Tax OfficerRelied uponW.P. (MD) No. 7338 of 2024 — Madras High Court — Decided on 21 November 2024 — Held that rejection of a rectification application without hearing the assessee and without recording reasons is impermissible under the third proviso to Section 161; assessee must be put on notice even when the application is filed at the instance of the assessee and is being rejected 

Facts:A search was conducted on 03.08.2021 at the premises of the petitioner, a metal scrap dealer. Investigation by DGGI revealed that the petitioner had allegedly availed fraudulent ITC from several non-existent supplier firms and passed on such ITC through fake invoices. A show cause notice dated 29.05.2023 was issued for the period 2017-18 to 2021-22 proposing recovery of ₹83,76,32,528/- under Section 74 along with interest and penalty, which was confirmed by the adjudication order dated 23.01.2025.Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned adjudication order was a detailed order passed after granting multiple opportunities of hearing and after considering the replies filed by the petitioner. The contention that the replies were not considered was rejected.The Court further held that issuance of a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act is permissible as the provisions use the expressions “for any period” and “for such periods”. In cases involving fraudulent availment or utilisation of ITC, transactions across several years may have to be examined together to establish the pattern of fraud.The Court also held that denial of cross-examination in show cause notice proceedings does not automatically vitiate the adjudication, as the right of cross-examination is not an unfettered right and depends on the facts of each case.Since the adjudication order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and involved disputed questions of fact, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy.Cases Referred by Court:·         Vallabh Textile Through Its Authorized Representative v. Additional/Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi East Commissionerate & Ors.·         Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner of Customs·         Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Director of Enforcement, (2013) 9 SCC 549·         Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj, (2008) 9 SCC 1·         HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1236·         Flevel International v. Central Excise, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12173