Facts:The petitioner, a developer engaged in construction projects, challenged the show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Sections 74(1) and 74A of the CGST Act proposing tax, interest and penalty for the period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2023-24. The petitioner contended that the notice illegally clubbed multiple financial years in a single show cause notice contrary to the scheme of the CGST Act.Court Decision:The Court held that under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, tax liability is determined with reference to the “tax period”, which is linked to the return filed for that period. Returns are filed either monthly or annually, and when the assessment is based on annual returns, the relevant tax period corresponds to the particular financial year.The Court observed that Sections 73(10) and 74(10) prescribe limitation for issuing orders based on the due date for filing the annual return for the respective financial year. Since the limitation operates separately for each financial year, the statute does not permit consolidation of multiple financial years into a single show cause notice.The Court further held that issuance of consolidated show cause notices covering several financial years frustrates the statutory limitation scheme and deprives the assessee of the opportunity to give year-specific explanations. Accordingly, the consolidated show cause notices issued for multiple financial years were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.Cases Referred by Court:·         R A and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, W.P. No.17239 of 2025 (Madras High Court)·         Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, W.P. No.33164 of 2023 (Madras High Court)·         Veremax Technologie Services Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P. No.15810 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)·         Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement)-22, W.P. No.16500 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)·         Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, 2025:KER:30805 (Kerala High Court)·         State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350·         RioCare India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex., (2025) 26 Centax 339 (Bombay High Court)·         Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2025 (Delhi High Court)

Facts:The petitioner, a registered assessee, was subjected to inspection and show cause notices were issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22. Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.02.2024 demanding tax, interest and penalty were passed. The petitioner contended that the orders were only uploaded on the GST portal and were not otherwise communicated, resulting in the lapse of the time limit for filing appeal under Section 107.Court Decision:The Court held that Section 107 provides that limitation for filing appeal runs from the date on which the order is “communicated” to the assessee. Section 169 deals with modes of “service”, but the expressions “served” and “communicated” are not synonymous. Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal does not amount to communication of the order to the assessee.Since the impugned orders had only been uploaded on the portal and were not communicated to the petitioner through other modes, the limitation period for filing appeal had not commenced. The Court directed the authority to communicate the impugned orders to the petitioner, after which the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 107. Until such communication, the orders could not be enforced. Cases Referred by Court:·         Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Nungambakkam Zone IV, Chennai Central Range, Chennai, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8986·         Koduvayur Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract, Palakad, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11392·         Ram Prasad Sharma v. Chief Commissioner, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4650·         New Hanumat Marbles v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7171·         Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456·         Shahul Hameed v. CTO, Tuticorin-II (WP(MD) No.26481 of 2024)·         Namasivaya Auto Cars v. The Deputy Sales Tax Officer-I, Korattur, 2025 (6) TMI 2027·         Binod Traders v. Union of India, 2025 (6) TMI 251 (Patna High Court)·         Raj International v. Commissioner (CGST), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2707·         A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kanchipuram, 1972 SCC OnLine Mad 347·         R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1994) 1 AC 530·         NHAI v. Madhukar Kumar, (2022) 14 SCC 661·         Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, 2025 INSC 236·         Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108·         Lalaram Thekedar v. Union of India, Writ Tax No.2786 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)

Facts :The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 02.02.2025 on the ground that notices for personal hearing were not received. The Department produced records showing that hearing notices were sent to the registered email address of the petitioner as available on the GST portal. The petitioner also argued that a consolidated notice/order for multiple financial periods was impermissible. The dispute involved allegations relating to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.Court Decision:The Court held that service of notice through the registered email address under Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act constitutes valid service. It found that hearing notices were duly sent to the petitioner’s registered email and the plea of non-service was not sustainable. On the issue of consolidated proceedings, the Court held that in cases involving fraudulent ITC spanning multiple periods, issuance of consolidated notice/order is permissible under Sections 73 and 74. The Court found no violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error and dismissed the writ petition with costs.Cases Referred:Rishi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi, NorthMrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxState of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd.Bennet and White (Calgary) Ltd. v. Municipal District of Sugar City No. 5Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central ExciseAmbika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, DGGSTI

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 

BackgroundThe petitioner is engaged in providing financial back-office services to an overseas entity under a service agreement. The department treated these services as "intermediary services" under Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017, holding that the place of supply was in India and hence the transactions could not qualify as "export of services." A show cause notice dated 28.11.2024 was issued. The petitioner filed detailed replies on 27.01.2025 and 06.02.2025 relying upon at least nine judicial precedents and a Board Circular dated 20.09.2021. However, the adjudicating authority passed an order dated 24.02.2025 confirming the GST demand of ₹70,57,98,208/- for the period April 2020 to March 2021, without independently addressing any of the contentions or precedents cited by the petitioner. A comparative chart submitted by the petitioner's counsel demonstrated that the so-called "reasoning" in the impugned order was a verbatim cut-and-paste of the allegations in the show cause notice itself. Court Observations (Verbatim)Para 8: "We are satisfied that the adjudicating authority has failed to independently apply its mind to the various contentions raised in the replies filed on behalf of the Petitioner. Instead, the adjudicating authority has chosen to copy or rather cut and paste verbatim the allegations in the show cause notice dated 28 November 2024 to pass them off as reasons supporting the impugned order."Para 13: "Besides the grounds, the adjudicating authority is obliged to issue an order after thoroughly considering all relevant arguments and to state the reasons supporting its decision briefly. Any decision made without considering the main contentions or without providing any supporting reasons would be indicative of a lack of application of mind. Simply cutting and pasting the allegations in the show cause notice or mechanically reciting them verbatim does not inspire confidence that due consideration has been shown to the cause, and the decision is made after its due consideration. Ultimately, these are aspects of natural justice principles that should guide the decision-making process in such cases."Para 15: "The phrase 'consider' does not mean that the contents of the representation are transcribed in the impugned order and without any discussion on the contentions raised, a conclusion is reached. In this case, the so-called reasoning is merely a cut-and-paste of most of the contents of the show cause notice, as noticed above."Para 17: "Section 75(6) of the CGST Act provides that the proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision. The emphasis of this provision is on the 'basis of decision'. This means the emphasis is on the reasons that support the decision. Merely cutting and pasting the allegations from the show cause notice does not amount to giving any independent reasons after due consideration the assessee's contentions or after due application of mind to those contentions."Para 19: "Since this is a case of complete non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice, there is no point in directing the Petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal. A clear breach of natural justice is an exception to the general rule that statutory remedies should usually be exhausted before seeking this Court's extraordinary intervention." Final VerdictThe impugned demand order dated 24.02.2025 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration and disposal of the show cause notice within three months, with a direction to follow principles of natural justice, including an opportunity of hearing and proper consideration of the petitioner's replies. All contentions on merits were left open.👍 In favour of the Assessee Cases / Provisions ReferredCitationCase NameWrit Petition No.2836 of 2021 (Bombay HC, decided 11.06.2024)Piramal Enterprises Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.(1985) SCC OnLine SC 178Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel2017 SCC OnLine Hyd. 164S. Kiranmayi v. Sri N. Sambasiva RaoStatutory Provisions Referred:Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 — Place of supply of intermediary servicesSection 73(9) of the CGST Act / MGST Act — Determination of tax and issuance of demand orderSection 75(6) of the CGST Act — Requirement to set out relevant facts and basis of decisionSection 7(5)(c) of the IGST Act — Inter-state supply provisionsSection 8(2) of the IGST Act — Intra-state supply provisionsSection 2(6) of the IGST Act — Definition of "export of services"