Facts (Background):The respondent-assessee challenged a show cause notice dated 29.07.2024 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act demanding tax, interest and penalty for the financial years 2017-18 to 2023-24 through a single consolidated notice. The Single Judge permitted the authority to pass an order for FY 2017-18 within limitation and directed separate adjudication orders for the remaining years. The department filed a writ appeal challenging that direction.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that under Section 74 of the CGST Act the determination of tax is linked to the financial year to which the alleged tax evasion relates, and the limitation for passing adjudication orders is computed separately for each financial year from the due date of filing the annual return.The Court held that although the statute does not expressly prohibit issuance of a consolidated show cause notice, the proper officer should ideally issue separate notices for different financial years because the limitation for adjudication differs for each year. A consolidated notice covering several financial years could prejudice the assessee by curtailing the effective time available for defence and evidence.Finding no error in the reasoning of the Single Judge, the Court dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the direction permitting separate adjudication orders for each financial year after granting opportunity of hearing.Cases Referred by Court: CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd., (1976) 4 SCC 435

Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 29.07.2024 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act proposing tax, interest and penalty for the financial years 2018-19 to 2023-24. The petitioner apprehended that the authorities would pass a composite adjudication order covering multiple financial years and sought direction for passing separate orders and granting opportunity for cross-examination.Court Decision:The Court held that at the stage of show cause notice there was no material to assume that the authorities would adopt a procedure contrary to law or deny opportunity of hearing. Therefore, interference with the show cause notice was not warranted.However, considering the limitation period for passing order for the financial year 2017-18, the Court permitted the authority to pass an order for that year within the prescribed limitation after granting opportunity of hearing. For the subsequent financial years, the Court observed that separate adjudication orders ought to be issued for each year even if the show cause notice is composite, and directed the authority to pass separate orders after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.Cases Referred by Court:·         W.P.(C) No.35156 of 2024 (Kerala High Court)

Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 07.08.2024 for the years 2019-20 and 2022-23 and the rectification order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was vague and that the limitation for filing appeal should not be computed from the date of the original assessment order since a rectification application under Section 161 had been filed and rejected later.Court Decision:The Court held that when a rectification application under Section 161 of the GST Act is filed, the rectification order merges with the original assessment order. If the rectification application is rejected, the limitation period for filing an appeal against the original assessment order cannot be computed from the date of the original order. The limitation would commence from the date on which the rectification application is disposed of.Since the rectification order was passed on 12.11.2024, the limitation for filing appeal against the assessment order dated 07.08.2024 would be reckoned from 12.11.2024. The writ petitions were disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal and clarifying that limitation shall be calculated from the date of rejection of the rectification application.Cases Referred by Court:·         MD Electric Co. v. State Tax Officer, Chennai, (2024) 17 Centax 348 (Mad.) 

Facts of the CaseThe present proceedings arose out of an application filed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) seeking modification of paragraph 9 of an earlier order dated 18 July 2024 passed by the High Court. The earlier order had directed the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, to proceed with grant of “financial sanction” and to float a comprehensive tender for establishing hybrid court infrastructure in all 691 courts, including 14 pilot courts.The GNCTD submitted that the overall project involved expenditure exceeding Rs. 100 crore and, as per prevailing financial rules, required approval from the Expenditure Finance Committee. It was therefore requested that the expression “financial sanction” be replaced with “administrative sanction.” The GNCTD further sought permission to float tenders initially only for 14 pilot courts instead of all 691 courts, with eligibility conditions requiring bidders to have technical and financial competence to execute the entire project. It was also contended that floating a comprehensive tender at once might make it difficult to revise ICT specifications after testing the pilot courts.The matter thus came before the Court to determine:Whether paragraph 9 of the earlier order required modification regarding the nature of sanction.Whether the tender process should be limited to 14 pilot courts at the initial stage.Court Observations and DecisionThe Court held that mere substitution of the term “financial sanction” with “administrative sanction” was not appropriate. Instead, it directed that the expression be replaced with “administrative and financial sanction and all other necessary sanctions/approvals,” in accordance with applicable financial rules.On the request to limit the tender process to 14 pilot courts, the Court rejected the proposal. It observed that restricting the tender to pilot courts while imposing eligibility conditions related to all 691 courts could lead to complications and delay, thereby undermining comprehensive and timely execution of the project.The Court emphasized the urgent need for adequate hybrid court infrastructure in Delhi District Courts, particularly in light of the enactment and enforcement of new criminal laws, including Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates audio-video recording of certain procedural acts. It held that expeditious implementation of infrastructure was essential.Accordingly, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, to proceed simultaneously and expedite the grant of administrative and financial sanction and all other necessary approvals for all 691 courts, as per the preliminary estimate dated 19 April 2024 amounting to Rs. 387,03,19,388/-, based on the configuration approved by the National Informatics Centre (NIC).The Court further directed that a comprehensive tender for all 691 courts, including 14 pilot courts, shall be floated. It clarified that the successful bidder must initially set up 14 hybrid courts on a pilot basis within one month from the date of award, and after approval by competent authorities, proceed with setting up the remaining courts with necessary modifications, if any.Case ReferredThe judgment does not refer to or rely upon any prior judicial precedents.

Facts :The appellant challenged an assessment order on the ground that it was only uploaded on the GST portal and not otherwise communicated. It was contended that the portal was not notified for uploading orders and therefore service was invalid. The appellant claimed lack of knowledge due to delayed access to the portal. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition directing the appellant to avail alternate remedy.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that Section 169 expressly permits service of orders by making them available on the common portal. It ruled that once a portal is notified under Section 146, it can be used for all statutory functions including communication of orders. The Court found that the appellant had in fact accessed and downloaded the order, and delay was attributable to the appellant. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the Single Judge was upheld.Cases Referred:None mentioned in the judgment.