Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.09.2025 issued under Section 73 of the GST enactments for the tax period 2021-2022. The challenge was mainly on the ground that an earlier intimation in Form DRC-01A dated 06.05.2025 and a show cause notice dated 29.05.2025 had already been issued for the same tax period, and therefore another show cause notice could not be issued.Court Decision:The High Court held that there is no bar under the GST enactments for issuance of multiple show cause notices for the same tax period if they relate to different discrepancies or subject matters. The Court observed that the earlier proceedings and the impugned show cause notice dealt with different issues except for a limited overlap relating to exempt supplies.The Court further held that the petitioner should submit a reply to the impugned show cause notice and raise all permissible defences before the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days and contest the proceedings on merits.Cases Referred by Court:Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New DelhiSimplex Infrastructures Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, KolkataAvery India Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaM/s ALM Industries Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (AE) Central Goods and ServicesH.A. Shah and Co. vs. Commissioner of Income TaxCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.Workmen of Cochin Port Trust vs. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port TrustSingh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer 18-12-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 23.09.2025 issued under Section 73 of the GST enactments for the tax period 2021-2022. The challenge was mainly on the ground that an earlier intimation in Form DRC-01A dated 06.05.2025 and a show cause notice dated 29.05.2025 had already been issued for the same tax period, and therefore another show cause notice could not be issued.Court Decision:The High Court held that there is no bar under the GST enactments for issuance of multiple show cause notices for the same tax period if they relate to different discrepancies or subject matters. The Court observed that the earlier proceedings and the impugned show cause notice dealt with different issues except for a limited overlap relating to exempt supplies.The Court further held that the petitioner should submit a reply to the impugned show cause notice and raise all permissible defences before the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days and contest the proceedings on merits.Cases Referred by Court:Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New DelhiSimplex Infrastructures Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, KolkataAvery India Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaM/s ALM Industries Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (AE) Central Goods and ServicesH.A. Shah and Co. vs. Commissioner of Income TaxCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.Workmen of Cochin Port Trust vs. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port TrustSingh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Facts :The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 29 August 2024 arising from a show cause notice for FY 2019–2020, along with certain GST notifications extending limitation. The petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice but did not avail personal hearing. It contended that its reply was not properly considered and sought relief against the demand. The challenge to notifications was also part of a larger batch of cases pending before various High Courts and the Supreme Court.Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned order did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. It observed that the petitioner had filed a reply which was considered, and therefore the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal. The petition was disposed of granting liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 31 January 2026 with pre-deposit, with a direction that such appeal shall not be rejected on limitation. The outcome was made subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP concerning validity of the notifications.Cases Referred:DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
India Retail Mart v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors. 16-12-2025
Facts :The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 29 August 2024 arising from a show cause notice for FY 2019–2020, along with certain GST notifications extending limitation. The petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice but did not avail personal hearing. It contended that its reply was not properly considered and sought relief against the demand. The challenge to notifications was also part of a larger batch of cases pending before various High Courts and the Supreme Court.Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned order did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. It observed that the petitioner had filed a reply which was considered, and therefore the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal. The petition was disposed of granting liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 31 January 2026 with pre-deposit, with a direction that such appeal shall not be rejected on limitation. The outcome was made subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP concerning validity of the notifications.Cases Referred:DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Facts:The petitioner, engaged in procurement and sale of edible oils, purchased oils in bulk and repacked them for sale at 5% GST. Due to higher GST rates on certain inputs, unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) accumulated, and refund was claimed under the inverted duty structure. Refund applications were rejected by authorities and appellate authority on the ground that input and output goods were the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging rejection of refund.Court Decision:The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders rejecting refund.Held that Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act does not prohibit refund merely because input and output goods are the same.Refund is admissible if ITC accumulation is due to higher tax on inputs compared to output supply.Circular No. 135/05/2020 restricting refund where input and output are same was held inapplicable and later restriction removed by Circular No. 173/05/2022.The 2022 Circular being beneficial and clarificatory was held retrospectively applicable.“Net ITC” includes all inputs irrespective of tax rates as per Rule 89(5).Cases Referred by Court:Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST (Delhi High Court, 2023)Suchitra Components Ltd. vs. CCE, Guntur (2006)K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer (1981)Union of India vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaShivaco Associates vs. Joint Commissioner of State TaxBMG Informatics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaMalabar Fuel Corporation vs. ACCT & CEMO Industries vs. Union of IndiaEveready Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACCT
South Indian Oil Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner, 12-12-2025
Facts:The petitioner, engaged in procurement and sale of edible oils, purchased oils in bulk and repacked them for sale at 5% GST. Due to higher GST rates on certain inputs, unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) accumulated, and refund was claimed under the inverted duty structure. Refund applications were rejected by authorities and appellate authority on the ground that input and output goods were the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging rejection of refund.Court Decision:The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders rejecting refund.Held that Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act does not prohibit refund merely because input and output goods are the same.Refund is admissible if ITC accumulation is due to higher tax on inputs compared to output supply.Circular No. 135/05/2020 restricting refund where input and output are same was held inapplicable and later restriction removed by Circular No. 173/05/2022.The 2022 Circular being beneficial and clarificatory was held retrospectively applicable.“Net ITC” includes all inputs irrespective of tax rates as per Rule 89(5).Cases Referred by Court:Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST (Delhi High Court, 2023)Suchitra Components Ltd. vs. CCE, Guntur (2006)K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer (1981)Union of India vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaShivaco Associates vs. Joint Commissioner of State TaxBMG Informatics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaMalabar Fuel Corporation vs. ACCT & CEMO Industries vs. Union of IndiaEveready Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACCT
Facts / Background:The petitioner challenged an appellate order dismissing its appeal as time-barred against an ex-parte adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Act. Before filing appeal, the petitioner had filed a rectification application under Section 161, which was rejected. Thereafter, the appeal was filed under Section 107 within one month of rejection of the rectification application. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as beyond limitation, refusing to exclude time spent in rectification proceedings. ________________________________________Court Decision:The Court held that although Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply in strict terms, its underlying principle applies to GST proceedings. It held that time spent bona fide in pursuing rectification under Section 161 must be excluded while computing limitation for appeal under Section 107. The Court clarified that such exclusion does not amount to condonation of delay but exclusion of time, and limitation continues to remain within statutory period. Accordingly, the appeal was held to be within limitation, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits. ________________________________________Cases Referred by Court:• M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise • Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. • Assistant Commissioner (CT) v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. • Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Parson Tools and Plants • Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Irrigation Department • Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. • India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh • M/s SPK and Co. v. State Tax Officer • M/s Arvind Fashion Ltd. v. State of Haryana • Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India
Prakash Medical Stores v. Union of India & Ors. 12-12-2025
Facts / Background:The petitioner challenged an appellate order dismissing its appeal as time-barred against an ex-parte adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Act. Before filing appeal, the petitioner had filed a rectification application under Section 161, which was rejected. Thereafter, the appeal was filed under Section 107 within one month of rejection of the rectification application. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as beyond limitation, refusing to exclude time spent in rectification proceedings. ________________________________________Court Decision:The Court held that although Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply in strict terms, its underlying principle applies to GST proceedings. It held that time spent bona fide in pursuing rectification under Section 161 must be excluded while computing limitation for appeal under Section 107. The Court clarified that such exclusion does not amount to condonation of delay but exclusion of time, and limitation continues to remain within statutory period. Accordingly, the appeal was held to be within limitation, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for decision on merits. ________________________________________Cases Referred by Court:• M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise • Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. • Assistant Commissioner (CT) v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. • Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Parson Tools and Plants • Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Irrigation Department • Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. • India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh • M/s SPK and Co. v. State Tax Officer • M/s Arvind Fashion Ltd. v. State of Haryana • Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India
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-noticee 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 IndiaM/s Sheetal and Sons v. Union of IndiaM/s MHJ Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi South
J.K. Enterprises v. Superintendent, Delhi North, Ward-24, Zone-1 12-12-2025
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-noticee 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 IndiaM/s Sheetal and Sons v. Union of IndiaM/s MHJ Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi South
Facts (Background):The petitioner failed to file the annual return under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act for the relevant period. The State Tax Officer passed an order dated 26.02.2025 levying late fee of ₹75,025 under CGST and ₹75,025 under SGST (₹1,50,050 total) under Section 47 and additionally imposed general penalty of ₹50,000 under Section 125. The petitioner challenged the order contending that once late fee is levied under Section 47, general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed and that the calculation of late fee was incorrect.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 125 provides for general penalty only where no specific penalty is prescribed under the Act. Since the petitioner had already been subjected to late fee under Section 47 for failure to file the return, the levy of additional general penalty under Section 125 was not permissible. Accordingly, the general penalty of ₹50,000 was set aside.With respect to the late fee, the Court held that the authority had incorrectly calculated the amount by duplicating it for CGST and SGST. The Court modified the late fee and directed that the petitioner shall pay ₹37,512.50 under SGST and ₹37,512.50 under CGST, totalling ₹75,025. Upon payment of the modified late fee, the bank was directed to permit the petitioner to operate the bank account which had been frozen.Cases Referred by Court:Order in W.P. No. 36614 of 2024, dated 04.02.2025 (Madras High Court).
Tvl R.P.G. Traders vs. State Tax Officer & Anr. 12-12-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner failed to file the annual return under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act for the relevant period. The State Tax Officer passed an order dated 26.02.2025 levying late fee of ₹75,025 under CGST and ₹75,025 under SGST (₹1,50,050 total) under Section 47 and additionally imposed general penalty of ₹50,000 under Section 125. The petitioner challenged the order contending that once late fee is levied under Section 47, general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed and that the calculation of late fee was incorrect.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 125 provides for general penalty only where no specific penalty is prescribed under the Act. Since the petitioner had already been subjected to late fee under Section 47 for failure to file the return, the levy of additional general penalty under Section 125 was not permissible. Accordingly, the general penalty of ₹50,000 was set aside.With respect to the late fee, the Court held that the authority had incorrectly calculated the amount by duplicating it for CGST and SGST. The Court modified the late fee and directed that the petitioner shall pay ₹37,512.50 under SGST and ₹37,512.50 under CGST, totalling ₹75,025. Upon payment of the modified late fee, the bank was directed to permit the petitioner to operate the bank account which had been frozen.Cases Referred by Court:Order in W.P. No. 36614 of 2024, dated 04.02.2025 (Madras High Court).
Facts :The petitions arose from detention and seizure of goods in transit under Section 129 of the CGST Act, followed by issuance of confiscation notices under Section 130. The petitioners contended that after the 2022 amendment, Section 129 is a complete code and authorities cannot directly invoke Section 130 without completing Section 129 proceedings. It was argued that confiscation requires intent to evade tax and cannot be presumed merely from discrepancies. The Revenue maintained that in cases of apparent tax evasion, Section 130 can be invoked at the threshold.Court Decision:The Court held that Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act are independent and mutually exclusive provisions even after the amendment. It ruled that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 can be initiated at the stage of detention if there is material indicating intent to evade tax, and completion of Section 129 proceedings is not a pre-condition. The Court relied on legislative intent showing that both provisions were consciously delinked, and upheld the validity of invoking Section 130 during transit proceedings subject to formation of proper opinion. The writ petitions were rejected.Cases Referred:Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. v. State of GujaratM/s ASP Traders v. State of U.P.Dhanlaxmi Metals v. State of GujaratRajiv Traders v. Union of IndiaState of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.State of W.B. v. Sujit Kumar RanaShiv Enterprises v. State of PunjabMohammad Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana
Facts :The petitions arose from detention and seizure of goods in transit under Section 129 of the CGST Act, followed by issuance of confiscation notices under Section 130. The petitioners contended that after the 2022 amendment, Section 129 is a complete code and authorities cannot directly invoke Section 130 without completing Section 129 proceedings. It was argued that confiscation requires intent to evade tax and cannot be presumed merely from discrepancies. The Revenue maintained that in cases of apparent tax evasion, Section 130 can be invoked at the threshold.Court Decision:The Court held that Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act are independent and mutually exclusive provisions even after the amendment. It ruled that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 can be initiated at the stage of detention if there is material indicating intent to evade tax, and completion of Section 129 proceedings is not a pre-condition. The Court relied on legislative intent showing that both provisions were consciously delinked, and upheld the validity of invoking Section 130 during transit proceedings subject to formation of proper opinion. The writ petitions were rejected.Cases Referred:Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. v. State of GujaratM/s ASP Traders v. State of U.P.Dhanlaxmi Metals v. State of GujaratRajiv Traders v. Union of IndiaState of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.State of W.B. v. Sujit Kumar RanaShiv Enterprises v. State of PunjabMohammad Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana
Facts :The petitioners’ goods were intercepted in transit and proceedings were initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act for detention and seizure. Subsequently, authorities issued notices in Form GST MOV-10 invoking Section 130 for confiscation without completing Section 129 proceedings. The petitioners challenged such action contending that post-amendment, Sections 129 and 130 are independent and confiscation cannot be initiated midway. They also argued that confiscation requires intent to evade tax and cannot be presumed at interception stage.Court Decision:The Court held that Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act are independent and mutually exclusive provisions. It was held that even after amendment, there is no bar on invoking Section 130 at the stage of detention if the authority forms an opinion of tax evasion. However, invocation of Section 130 requires existence of material indicating intent to evade tax and cannot be based on mere suspicion. The Court recognized that confiscation can be initiated at threshold, but reasons must be recorded and the case must justify such action. It upheld the legal position that proceedings under Sections 129, 130, and 73/74 operate in distinct fields and are not dependent on each other.Cases Referred:Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. vs State of GujaratM/s ASP Traders vs State of U.P. & Ors.Dhanlaxmi Metals vs State of GujaratRajiv Traders vs Union of IndiaState of West Bengal vs Kesoram Industries Ltd.State of West Bengal vs Sujit Kumar RanaMohammad Abdul Samad vs State of Telangana
Panchhi Traders vs State of Gujarat & Anr 11-12-2025
Facts :The petitioners’ goods were intercepted in transit and proceedings were initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act for detention and seizure. Subsequently, authorities issued notices in Form GST MOV-10 invoking Section 130 for confiscation without completing Section 129 proceedings. The petitioners challenged such action contending that post-amendment, Sections 129 and 130 are independent and confiscation cannot be initiated midway. They also argued that confiscation requires intent to evade tax and cannot be presumed at interception stage.Court Decision:The Court held that Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act are independent and mutually exclusive provisions. It was held that even after amendment, there is no bar on invoking Section 130 at the stage of detention if the authority forms an opinion of tax evasion. However, invocation of Section 130 requires existence of material indicating intent to evade tax and cannot be based on mere suspicion. The Court recognized that confiscation can be initiated at threshold, but reasons must be recorded and the case must justify such action. It upheld the legal position that proceedings under Sections 129, 130, and 73/74 operate in distinct fields and are not dependent on each other.Cases Referred:Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. vs State of GujaratM/s ASP Traders vs State of U.P. & Ors.Dhanlaxmi Metals vs State of GujaratRajiv Traders vs Union of IndiaState of West Bengal vs Kesoram Industries Ltd.State of West Bengal vs Sujit Kumar RanaMohammad Abdul Samad vs State of Telangana
The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudication Order dated 10 December 2020 and the Appellate Order dated 02 January 2025.The Court held that:The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a tax liability exceeding the amount specified in the Show Cause Notice, in violation of Section 75(7) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The provision imposes a jurisdictional ceiling and prohibits confirmation of an amount higher than that stated in the notice. The excess demand rendered the order ultra vires and unsustainable.The failure to grant a personal hearing despite a specific request violated Section 75(4) of the Act. The provision mandates that a personal hearing shall be granted where requested. The ex parte order passed without granting such hearing constituted a breach of principles of natural justice and was held to be a fatal infirmity.The cumulative effect of breach of Section 75(7), violation of Section 75(4), and initiation of parallel proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 rendered the assessment fundamentally flawed.The Court remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication from the stage of reply to the Show Cause Notice, directing grant of fresh personal hearing and strict compliance with Section 75(7).Cases Referred by Court:Kaveri Telecom Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (2018)
Bengal Engineering vs State of West Bengal & Ors 08-12-2025
The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudication Order dated 10 December 2020 and the Appellate Order dated 02 January 2025.The Court held that:The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a tax liability exceeding the amount specified in the Show Cause Notice, in violation of Section 75(7) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The provision imposes a jurisdictional ceiling and prohibits confirmation of an amount higher than that stated in the notice. The excess demand rendered the order ultra vires and unsustainable.The failure to grant a personal hearing despite a specific request violated Section 75(4) of the Act. The provision mandates that a personal hearing shall be granted where requested. The ex parte order passed without granting such hearing constituted a breach of principles of natural justice and was held to be a fatal infirmity.The cumulative effect of breach of Section 75(7), violation of Section 75(4), and initiation of parallel proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 rendered the assessment fundamentally flawed.The Court remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication from the stage of reply to the Show Cause Notice, directing grant of fresh personal hearing and strict compliance with Section 75(7).Cases Referred by Court:Kaveri Telecom Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (2018)
Facts (Background):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. 05-12-2025
Facts (Background):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
