Facts (Background):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:·         M/s 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)·         M/s 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 (Background):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)  

Facts (Background):The petitioner purchased rubber products from a supplier and paid GST amounting to ₹1,11,60,830 to the supplier during July 2017 to January 2019. Investigation revealed that the supplier filed GSTR-1 showing sales but did not deposit the GST with the Government while filing GSTR-3B returns. The department issued a show cause notice under Section 73 alleging wrongful availment of ITC and confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act requires that ITC can be availed only when tax charged on the supply has actually been paid to the Government. However, the Court observed that a purchasing dealer has no mechanism to verify whether the supplier has deposited the tax with the Government and cannot control the supplier’s compliance.The Court held that denial of ITC to a bona fide purchaser who has paid tax to the supplier would impose an impossible and disproportionate burden and would defeat the objective of ITC, which is to avoid double taxation. Accordingly, the Court held that Section 16(2)(c) is constitutionally valid but must be read down so that ITC cannot be denied in bona fide transactions where the purchaser has paid GST to the supplier and there is no fraud or collusion.Since the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated under Section 73 and there was no allegation of fraud or collusion, the transaction was held to be bona fide. The impugned order dated 17.05.2022 denying ITC was set aside and the respondents were directed to allow ITC of ₹1,11,60,830 to the petitioner.Cases Referred by Court:B.R. Enterprises vs. State of U.P.CST vs. RadhakrishanOn Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Government of NCT of DelhiCommissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. Arise India Ltd.Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner Trade and Tax, DelhiCommissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd.National Plasto Moulding vs. State of AssamMcLeod Russel India Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaLaxmipat Singhania vs. CITMahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CITJain Brothers vs. Union of India 

The petitioners challenged assessment orders and show cause notices imposing late fee under Section 47 and penalty under Section 125 of GST Acts for delayed filing of returns. They sought benefit of Amnesty Notification No.07/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, which reduced/waived late fee for specified periods. Some petitioners had filed returns within the amnesty window, while others filed before or after the prescribed period. They contended that imposition of both late fee and general penalty was illegal and contrary to the scheme of the Act.Court Decision:The Court held that late fee under Section 47 is a specific penalty for delay in filing returns and once imposed, general penalty under Section 125 cannot be levied for the same default. Imposition of general penalty in addition to late fee was set aside as unsustainable. The Court upheld applicability of Amnesty Notification No.07/2023 (as amended) only to those who satisfied the conditions specified therein, including filing within the prescribed period. Relief was granted by directing re-computation of late fee in accordance with the notification wherever applicable and by quashing improper penalty components.Cases Referred:Tvl. Jainsons Castors and Industrial Products vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nandanam, Chennai 

Facts (Background):Audit reports dated 06.12.2022 and 22.02.2023 were issued in respect of the petitioner. Based on the audit observations, the respondent issued a revision notice dated 05.11.2025 under Section 108(1) of the CGST/KGST Act proposing revision of the audit report. The petitioner challenged the notice contending that revision proceedings under Section 108 cannot be initiated merely to revise an audit report without first initiating proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 65(7) of the KGST Act provides that where an audit detects unpaid or short-paid tax or wrongful availment of input tax credit, the proper officer must initiate action under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act. The Court observed that in the present case no proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 had been initiated prior to issuing the revision notice under Section 108.Following the earlier judgment of the same Court, the Court held that revisional powers under Section 108 cannot be invoked to revise an audit report in the absence of proceedings under Sections 73 or 74. Consequently, the revision notice dated 05.11.2025 was held to be without jurisdiction and was quashed, while granting liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:M/s Navayuga Engineering Company Limited vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial TaxesRadha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh