GST INDIA Biz
GST India .biz — Case Law
Latest GST Case Law and Judgements
S.No Name Date of Order Subject Actions
41Maruti Enterprise v. Union of India & Ors.01-05-2026Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act – whether denial of ITC to a bona fide purchaser for the supplier’s failure to deposit tax violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A, or whether the provision should be read down to cases View Download

BackgroundIn a large group of petitions, purchasing dealers denied ITC because their suppliers had not deposited the tax collected challenged Section 16(2)(c). They argued that the GST system gives a purchaser no means to verify the supplier’s GSTR-3B or tax payment, invoked the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, and relied on On Quest Merchandising (Delhi HC), which read down Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act, and Sahil Enterprises (Tripura HC), which read down Section 16(2)(c). The Court confined itself to the question of vires and did not examine individual merits.Final VerdictThe Court held that the GST regime cannot be equated with VAT: it is destination-based, ITC crosses State lines, and under Section 53 the originating State would have to transfer tax it never received if credit were allowed without payment. The purchaser is not left remediless, because the Revenue can recover from the supplier under Sections 73 and 74, and Section 41(2) with Rule 37A allows re-availment once the supplier pays; mere delay or hardship in availing ITC cannot constitute a valid ground for reading down Section 16(2)(c). ITC is a statutory concession, Section 155 places the burden of proving eligibility on the claimant, and the Court respectfully disagreed with the Tripura High Court. It held that Section 16(2)(c) is clear, self-explanatory and unambiguous, and its plain reading does not give rise to any constitutional or legal infirmity, and declined to read it down or declare it ultra vires.In its final observations, the Court referred to the Axel Kittel principle that ITC may be denied only where the recipient knew or ought to have known of the fraud, and urged the Government to re-evaluate the position of honest purchasers, through legislative amendment or clarification, a real-time technology-driven mechanism to verify suppliers’ tax payments against specific invoices, and prompt recovery from erring suppliers. The petitions were directed to be listed for decision on merits. 

Maruti Enterprise v. Union of India & Ors. 01-05-2026
Constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act – whether denial of ITC to a bona fide purchaser for the supplier’s failure to deposit tax violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A, or whether the provision should be read down to cases

BackgroundIn a large group of petitions, purchasing dealers denied ITC because their suppliers had not deposited the tax collected challenged Section 16(2)(c). They argued that the GST system gives a purchaser no means to verify the supplier’s GSTR-3B or tax payment, invoked the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, and relied on On Quest Merchandising (Delhi HC), which read down Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act, and Sahil Enterprises (Tripura HC), which read down Section 16(2)(c). The Court confined itself to the question of vires and did not examine individual merits.Final VerdictThe Court held that the GST regime cannot be equated with VAT: it is destination-based, ITC crosses State lines, and under Section 53 the originating State would have to transfer tax it never received if credit were allowed without payment. The purchaser is not left remediless, because the Revenue can recover from the supplier under Sections 73 and 74, and Section 41(2) with Rule 37A allows re-availment once the supplier pays; mere delay or hardship in availing ITC cannot constitute a valid ground for reading down Section 16(2)(c). ITC is a statutory concession, Section 155 places the burden of proving eligibility on the claimant, and the Court respectfully disagreed with the Tripura High Court. It held that Section 16(2)(c) is clear, self-explanatory and unambiguous, and its plain reading does not give rise to any constitutional or legal infirmity, and declined to read it down or declare it ultra vires.In its final observations, the Court referred to the Axel Kittel principle that ITC may be denied only where the recipient knew or ought to have known of the fraud, and urged the Government to re-evaluate the position of honest purchasers, through legislative amendment or clarification, a real-time technology-driven mechanism to verify suppliers’ tax payments against specific invoices, and prompt recovery from erring suppliers. The petitions were directed to be listed for decision on merits. 

View Download
42Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.29-04-2026Validity of Section 74 CGST proceedings against an amalgamating company after merger, and whether Section 87 permits such proceedings against a non-existent entity. View Download

BackgroundPursuant to an order of the NCLT dated 30 August 2018, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. and Vodafone India Limited merged with Idea Cellular Limited, resulting in the petitioner being the merged entity. The fact of the merger was intimated to the GST authorities at the time of amendment of the GST registration. Before the merger, one of the businesses of the amalgamating company was its tower business, which was transferred as a going concern on a slump-sale basis. The petitioner contended that the transfer of the entire business was not a supply in the course or furtherance of business and therefore was not declared in GST returns.Between March and July 2022, the DGGI sought documents from the petitioner. Thereafter, summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act were issued on 7 February 2024, followed by a show-cause notice dated 1 August 2024 demanding ₹363 crores under Section 74, along with penalty, on the ground that transfer of a going concern was an exempt supply and that ITC had been wrongly availed. Detailed replies were filed, but the impugned order dated 29 January 2025 was passed without considering the submissions concerning the merger.2. Court ObservationThe Court noted that the merger pursuant to the NCLT order was undisputed and that the GST authorities had been informed of the merger. The Court accepted the principle laid down in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. that once an amalgamating entity ceases to exist pursuant to an approved scheme of amalgamation, proceedings initiated against that non-existent entity are void ab initio.The Court specifically examined Section 87 of the CGST Act and held that its provisions operate in relation to the intervening period between the effective date of merger and the date of the merger order, where transactions between the amalgamating companies have to be accounted for. Section 87 does not confer authority upon the Department to issue a show-cause notice against a non-existent entity after the merger. Post-merger, the amalgamating entity has no legal status and proceedings cannot be initiated against it.The Court therefore held that the ingredients of Section 87 could not be invoked to continue the proceedings contemplated by the show-cause notice. Since the show-cause notice itself was issued without jurisdiction, the proceedings were vitiated and void ab initio.3. Final VerdictThe Bombay High Court held that Section 87 of the CGST Act could not be invoked to continue the proceedings against the non-existent amalgamating entity. The show-cause notice dated 1 August 2024, having been issued without jurisdiction, and the proceedings arising from it, were held to be void ab initio.Accordingly, the Court held that the petition succeeded and was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), thereby quashing the impugned order dated 29 January 2025.4. Cases Referred by CourtCaseCourtDate / CitationPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.Supreme Court of India[2019] 416 ITR 613; specific order date not stated in the PDFReliance Industries Limited v. P. L. RoongtaHigh Court of Bombay[2025] 479 ITR 770; specific order date not stated in the PDFHCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax and AnotherHigh Court of Delhi2024 SCC OnLine Del 8287; specific order date not stated in the PDFThe Court relied particularly on Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. for the principle that proceedings initiated against an entity that had ceased to exist following amalgamation are void ab initio, and on Reliance Industries Ltd. v. P. L. Roongta for applying that principle to proceedings against a non-existent amalgamating entity.The Court also found support in HCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax and Another, which interpreted Section 87 as preserving the tax treatment of transactions during the relevant period but not as authorising proceedings or an assessment against a non-existent amalgamating company.  

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 29-04-2026
Validity of Section 74 CGST proceedings against an amalgamating company after merger, and whether Section 87 permits such proceedings against a non-existent entity.

BackgroundPursuant to an order of the NCLT dated 30 August 2018, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. and Vodafone India Limited merged with Idea Cellular Limited, resulting in the petitioner being the merged entity. The fact of the merger was intimated to the GST authorities at the time of amendment of the GST registration. Before the merger, one of the businesses of the amalgamating company was its tower business, which was transferred as a going concern on a slump-sale basis. The petitioner contended that the transfer of the entire business was not a supply in the course or furtherance of business and therefore was not declared in GST returns.Between March and July 2022, the DGGI sought documents from the petitioner. Thereafter, summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act were issued on 7 February 2024, followed by a show-cause notice dated 1 August 2024 demanding ₹363 crores under Section 74, along with penalty, on the ground that transfer of a going concern was an exempt supply and that ITC had been wrongly availed. Detailed replies were filed, but the impugned order dated 29 January 2025 was passed without considering the submissions concerning the merger.2. Court ObservationThe Court noted that the merger pursuant to the NCLT order was undisputed and that the GST authorities had been informed of the merger. The Court accepted the principle laid down in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. that once an amalgamating entity ceases to exist pursuant to an approved scheme of amalgamation, proceedings initiated against that non-existent entity are void ab initio.The Court specifically examined Section 87 of the CGST Act and held that its provisions operate in relation to the intervening period between the effective date of merger and the date of the merger order, where transactions between the amalgamating companies have to be accounted for. Section 87 does not confer authority upon the Department to issue a show-cause notice against a non-existent entity after the merger. Post-merger, the amalgamating entity has no legal status and proceedings cannot be initiated against it.The Court therefore held that the ingredients of Section 87 could not be invoked to continue the proceedings contemplated by the show-cause notice. Since the show-cause notice itself was issued without jurisdiction, the proceedings were vitiated and void ab initio.3. Final VerdictThe Bombay High Court held that Section 87 of the CGST Act could not be invoked to continue the proceedings against the non-existent amalgamating entity. The show-cause notice dated 1 August 2024, having been issued without jurisdiction, and the proceedings arising from it, were held to be void ab initio.Accordingly, the Court held that the petition succeeded and was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), thereby quashing the impugned order dated 29 January 2025.4. Cases Referred by CourtCaseCourtDate / CitationPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.Supreme Court of India[2019] 416 ITR 613; specific order date not stated in the PDFReliance Industries Limited v. P. L. RoongtaHigh Court of Bombay[2025] 479 ITR 770; specific order date not stated in the PDFHCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax and AnotherHigh Court of Delhi2024 SCC OnLine Del 8287; specific order date not stated in the PDFThe Court relied particularly on Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. for the principle that proceedings initiated against an entity that had ceased to exist following amalgamation are void ab initio, and on Reliance Industries Ltd. v. P. L. Roongta for applying that principle to proceedings against a non-existent amalgamating entity.The Court also found support in HCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax and Another, which interpreted Section 87 as preserving the tax treatment of transactions during the relevant period but not as authorising proceedings or an assessment against a non-existent amalgamating company.  

View Download
43Vodafone Idea Ltd. (formerly Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.) v. Union of India29-04-2026A Section 74 demand of about Rs. 363 crore, raised on a company merged out of existence, on the theory that its pre-merger going-concern transfer of a tower business was an exempt supply restricting input tax credit. At issue: jurisdiction over a non-exis View Download

Background.  By NCLT order dated 30.08.2018, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. and Vodafone India Ltd. merged into Idea Cellular Ltd., the merger being intimated to the GST authorities at the time of amendment of registration. Earlier, on 13.11.2017, VMSL had transferred its entire tower business to ATC Telecom Infrastructure, with all rights and liabilities, as a going concern on a slump-sale basis; it was not declared in the GST returns and no invoice was raised. DGGI issued a show cause notice dated 01.08.2024 under Section 74 demanding INR 363 crore with penalty, on the footing that transfer of a going concern is an exempted supply and VMSL was therefore not entitled to input tax credit. The order followed on 29.01.2025.Observations of the Court.  The Court held that the conditions in Section 87 operate only in respect of the intervening period from the date on which the order takes effect till the date of the order, and in no way authorise the department to issue a show cause notice on a non-existent entity post merger or amalgamation, since a merged entity has no status in the eyes of law and no proceedings can be initiated against it. The submission that Section 87 applied on these facts was rejected.The department’s contention that Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., having been rendered under the Income-tax Act, would not apply where Section 87 was attracted, was not accepted. The Court drew support from Reliance Industries Limited v. P. L. Roongta and from the Delhi High Court’s reasoning in HCL Infosystems Ltd., which it extracted. It is to be noted that prayer clause (c), challenging Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 12/2017 as ultra vires, was not pressed and remains undecided.Final verdict.  he petition succeeded and was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), the impugned order being quashed as void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. The exempt-supply and consequent credit-restriction theory underlying the demand was not adjudicated on merits.

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (formerly Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.) v. Union of India 29-04-2026
A Section 74 demand of about Rs. 363 crore, raised on a company merged out of existence, on the theory that its pre-merger going-concern transfer of a tower business was an exempt supply restricting input tax credit. At issue: jurisdiction over a non-exis

Background.  By NCLT order dated 30.08.2018, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. and Vodafone India Ltd. merged into Idea Cellular Ltd., the merger being intimated to the GST authorities at the time of amendment of registration. Earlier, on 13.11.2017, VMSL had transferred its entire tower business to ATC Telecom Infrastructure, with all rights and liabilities, as a going concern on a slump-sale basis; it was not declared in the GST returns and no invoice was raised. DGGI issued a show cause notice dated 01.08.2024 under Section 74 demanding INR 363 crore with penalty, on the footing that transfer of a going concern is an exempted supply and VMSL was therefore not entitled to input tax credit. The order followed on 29.01.2025.Observations of the Court.  The Court held that the conditions in Section 87 operate only in respect of the intervening period from the date on which the order takes effect till the date of the order, and in no way authorise the department to issue a show cause notice on a non-existent entity post merger or amalgamation, since a merged entity has no status in the eyes of law and no proceedings can be initiated against it. The submission that Section 87 applied on these facts was rejected.The department’s contention that Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., having been rendered under the Income-tax Act, would not apply where Section 87 was attracted, was not accepted. The Court drew support from Reliance Industries Limited v. P. L. Roongta and from the Delhi High Court’s reasoning in HCL Infosystems Ltd., which it extracted. It is to be noted that prayer clause (c), challenging Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 12/2017 as ultra vires, was not pressed and remains undecided.Final verdict.  he petition succeeded and was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), the impugned order being quashed as void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. The exempt-supply and consequent credit-restriction theory underlying the demand was not adjudicated on merits.

View Download
44Sumukha Ventures vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors.24-04-2026Challenge to Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original passed by the same officer who conducted the audit proceedings — violation of principles of natural justice under GST. View Download

BackgroundSumukha Ventures, a partnership firm based in Bengaluru, was subjected to proceedings initiated by both the audit authority and the enforcement authority under GST. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-3.7 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2025 (Form GST DRC-01, Reference No. ZD290925221988K). Thereafter, an Order-in-Original (Annexure-B) was passed by the same officer who had conducted the audit proceedings. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka challenging both the Show Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original. Court Observations (Verbatim)"It is submitted that such action is impermissible and being in violation of principles of natural justice, insofar as the authority while conducting audit has expressed its opinion and findings are recorded at one stage. It is submitted that once again if the same officer were to conduct the assessment proceedings, the authority would be guided by the findings made in the audit report.""Taking note that this identical question is often raised by assessees, it would be appropriate that this aspect has the benefit of adjudication by the appropriate authority. By keeping open all contentions raised, the matter is remitted to respondent No.2.""The petitioner to take their stand before respondent No.2, regarding the aspect of jurisdiction as raised in the present petition. Upon such objection being raised, it is open for the authority to obtain necessary orders on the administrative side from the authority which assigns i.e., the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration) - respondent No.1.""Taking note of the nature of objection raised, the authority to record a finding of their aspect of jurisdiction as per the procedure referred to above and only thereafter, consider the proceedings on merits.""Needless to state, no steps to be taken on merits till finding is recorded in terms of the observations made." Final VerdictThe Order-in-Original (Annexure-B) was set aside and the matter was remitted to Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner) to first decide the question of jurisdiction — specifically whether the same officer who conducted the audit can also pass the adjudication order — before proceeding on merits. The petition was disposed of accordingly. Citations / Circulars ReferredReferenceDetailsCircular No. 31/05/2018-GSTDated 09.02.2018 (Annexure-AB) — referred by Petitioner regarding impermissibility of same officer conducting audit and adjudicationCircular No. 169/01/2022-GSTDated 12.03.2022 (Annexure-AC) — referred by Petitioner on same issue 

Sumukha Ventures vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. 24-04-2026
Challenge to Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original passed by the same officer who conducted the audit proceedings — violation of principles of natural justice under GST.

BackgroundSumukha Ventures, a partnership firm based in Bengaluru, was subjected to proceedings initiated by both the audit authority and the enforcement authority under GST. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-3.7 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 30.09.2025 (Form GST DRC-01, Reference No. ZD290925221988K). Thereafter, an Order-in-Original (Annexure-B) was passed by the same officer who had conducted the audit proceedings. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka challenging both the Show Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original. Court Observations (Verbatim)"It is submitted that such action is impermissible and being in violation of principles of natural justice, insofar as the authority while conducting audit has expressed its opinion and findings are recorded at one stage. It is submitted that once again if the same officer were to conduct the assessment proceedings, the authority would be guided by the findings made in the audit report.""Taking note that this identical question is often raised by assessees, it would be appropriate that this aspect has the benefit of adjudication by the appropriate authority. By keeping open all contentions raised, the matter is remitted to respondent No.2.""The petitioner to take their stand before respondent No.2, regarding the aspect of jurisdiction as raised in the present petition. Upon such objection being raised, it is open for the authority to obtain necessary orders on the administrative side from the authority which assigns i.e., the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration) - respondent No.1.""Taking note of the nature of objection raised, the authority to record a finding of their aspect of jurisdiction as per the procedure referred to above and only thereafter, consider the proceedings on merits.""Needless to state, no steps to be taken on merits till finding is recorded in terms of the observations made." Final VerdictThe Order-in-Original (Annexure-B) was set aside and the matter was remitted to Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner) to first decide the question of jurisdiction — specifically whether the same officer who conducted the audit can also pass the adjudication order — before proceeding on merits. The petition was disposed of accordingly. Citations / Circulars ReferredReferenceDetailsCircular No. 31/05/2018-GSTDated 09.02.2018 (Annexure-AB) — referred by Petitioner regarding impermissibility of same officer conducting audit and adjudicationCircular No. 169/01/2022-GSTDated 12.03.2022 (Annexure-AC) — referred by Petitioner on same issue 

View Download
45Ankur Kampani v. Union of India & Others20-04-2026Quashing of GST penalty order passed without issuance of notice — violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. View Download

BackgroundA penalty of Rs. 4,03,26,803/- was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 15.12.2025 under Sections 122(1)(A), 122(1)(x) and 122(1)(xvi) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. Crucially, prior to passing of the said order, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner.Court Observations (Verbatim)"The impugned order is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but is also in conflict with the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, we have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order qua the petitioner."Final VerdictThe impugned penalty order was quashed. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law.  

Ankur Kampani v. Union of India & Others 20-04-2026
Quashing of GST penalty order passed without issuance of notice — violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.

BackgroundA penalty of Rs. 4,03,26,803/- was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 15.12.2025 under Sections 122(1)(A), 122(1)(x) and 122(1)(xvi) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. Crucially, prior to passing of the said order, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner.Court Observations (Verbatim)"The impugned order is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but is also in conflict with the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, we have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order qua the petitioner."Final VerdictThe impugned penalty order was quashed. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law.  

View Download
46NHD Motors vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.15-04-2026Validity of demand order passed ex-parte under Section 73 of Delhi GST Act, 2017 where SCN was uploaded only on the obscure 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal, denying the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing. View Download

BackgroundNHD Motors, a GST-registered partnership firm, was issued an SCN dated 9th December, 2023 for FY 2018-19 under Section 73 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017. The SCN was uploaded exclusively on the 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal — a tab that was not prominently visible to taxpayers prior to 16th January, 2024 (when the portal was subsequently modified to make this tab visible). Since the petitioner was unaware of the SCN, no reply was filed. Consequently, an ex-parte demand order dated 5th April, 2024 was passed raising a demand of ₹23,67,282/-. The petitioner contended that no excess ITC had been availed and that the amount was also mis-calculated. The respondent argued that a reminder was issued on 27th February, 2024 (after 16th January, 2024) and thus effective service was achieved.Court Observations (Verbatim)"There is no dispute that, after 16th January, 2024, certain changes were introduced on the GST portal and the 'Additional Notices Tab' was made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN had been issued prior to the said date. In such circumstances, and considering that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and had not filed any reply to the SCN, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.""This Court is unable to agree with the aforesaid contention of the respondent. The reminder pertained to the SCN uploaded prior to 16th January, 2024 in the same 'Additional Notices Tab' in which the SCN itself had been uploaded, a tab, in which the SCN was not visible to the petitioner. In such circumstances, where the SCN itself was never effectively served upon the petitioner, any subsequent communication styled as a reminder in respect thereof cannot, in law, be treated as a valid or effective reminder to the said SCN."Final VerdictThe impugned demand order dated 5th April, 2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded. The petitioner is granted time till 8th May, 2026 to file reply to the SCN; the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a personal hearing notice, duly communicated to the petitioner, and pass a fresh order after considering the reply and submissions. Access to the GST portal is to be provided to the petitioner for uploading reply and accessing related documents. 

NHD Motors vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 15-04-2026
Validity of demand order passed ex-parte under Section 73 of Delhi GST Act, 2017 where SCN was uploaded only on the obscure 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal, denying the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing.

BackgroundNHD Motors, a GST-registered partnership firm, was issued an SCN dated 9th December, 2023 for FY 2018-19 under Section 73 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017. The SCN was uploaded exclusively on the 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal — a tab that was not prominently visible to taxpayers prior to 16th January, 2024 (when the portal was subsequently modified to make this tab visible). Since the petitioner was unaware of the SCN, no reply was filed. Consequently, an ex-parte demand order dated 5th April, 2024 was passed raising a demand of ₹23,67,282/-. The petitioner contended that no excess ITC had been availed and that the amount was also mis-calculated. The respondent argued that a reminder was issued on 27th February, 2024 (after 16th January, 2024) and thus effective service was achieved.Court Observations (Verbatim)"There is no dispute that, after 16th January, 2024, certain changes were introduced on the GST portal and the 'Additional Notices Tab' was made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN had been issued prior to the said date. In such circumstances, and considering that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and had not filed any reply to the SCN, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.""This Court is unable to agree with the aforesaid contention of the respondent. The reminder pertained to the SCN uploaded prior to 16th January, 2024 in the same 'Additional Notices Tab' in which the SCN itself had been uploaded, a tab, in which the SCN was not visible to the petitioner. In such circumstances, where the SCN itself was never effectively served upon the petitioner, any subsequent communication styled as a reminder in respect thereof cannot, in law, be treated as a valid or effective reminder to the said SCN."Final VerdictThe impugned demand order dated 5th April, 2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded. The petitioner is granted time till 8th May, 2026 to file reply to the SCN; the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a personal hearing notice, duly communicated to the petitioner, and pass a fresh order after considering the reply and submissions. Access to the GST portal is to be provided to the petitioner for uploading reply and accessing related documents. 

View Download
47Manoja Kumar Nayak vs Commissioner, 08-04-2026Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and levy of tax, interest under Section 50, and penalty — where ITC availed from an alleged non-existent supplier had already been voluntarily reversed by the taxpayer prior to View Download

BACKGROUNDThe petitioner, Manoja Kumar Nayak , engaged in transportation and works contract, availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs.4,39,970/- (IGST) during August–December 2017 on the strength of invoices issued by  Auxesia Traders, Kolkata . The said supplier was subsequently found to be a non-existent/fictitious entity, based on an Alert Notice No.11/2023-24 dated 19.03.2024 issued by DGGI, Kolkata Zonal Unit, and on the statement of its proprietor Shri Tamoji Bose recorded in 2019. Upon receipt of a letter dated 12.07.2024 from the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, requesting reversal of the ITC, the petitioner proactively reversed the entire ITC of Rs.4,39,970/- through GSTR-3B returns filed for April 2023 (Rs.2,64,342/-) and June 2024 (Rs.1,75,128/-), well before issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner intimated this reversal to the Superintendent vide letter dated 17.07.2024, also pointing out that the Electronic Credit Ledger had a surplus balance exceeding the reversed amount at all material times, and therefore no interest under Section 50 was payable. Despite this, a Summary Show Cause Notice and Demand Show Cause Notice both dated 26.07.2024 were issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The petitioner filed a reply dated 30.01.2025 reiterating the voluntary reversal and surplus ECL balance. Ignoring the reply, the Adjudicating Authority passed Order-in-Original dated 03.02.2025 confirming demand of Rs.4,39,970/- (IGST), interest under Section 50, and penalty of Rs.4,39,970/- under Section 74 — solely on the basis of the DGGI Alert Notice, without any independent inquiry. Both petitioners (the second being M/s. Babamani Roadways & Borewells, similarly situated) filed writ petitions before the Orissa High Court challenging these orders. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim / Near-Verbatim)On mechanical invocation of Section 74 without independent inquiry:"The Adjudicating Authority without independent application of mind merely based on Alert Notice dated 19.03.2024 received from the DGGI, Kolkata Zonal Unit traversed his authority under Section 74 of the GST Act.""Thus, it can be seen from the approach made by the Adjudicating Authority that he blindly followed the Alert Notice of the DGGI, without undertaking any independent inquiry to ascertain credibility of such allegation qua the petitioner... Hence, discrediting such inchoate material being utilised for the purpose of raising demand of tax, interest and penalty under Section 74 this Court thus finds the determination of liability null and invalid in absence of any independent inquiry being carried out to verify the allegation contained in the Alert Notice of the DGGI.""Allegation against supplier vide Alert Notice No.11/2023-24, dated 19.03.2024 would not ipso facto empower the Adjudicating Authority to initiate action against the recipient (petitioner) under Section 74. The language employed in Section 74 suggests that strong and tangible material must be available on record to suggest that the petitioner had the conscious and active involvement in such dubious transactions."On supplier's default not ipso facto establishing recipient's fraud:"It may be highlighted that input tax credit could be availed erroneously or on a mistaken interpretation of law. Therefore, it would not be apposite to form an opinion that in each and every case where the supplier admits or defaults, it would lead to infer that the recipient fraudulently in order to evade tax has availed the input tax credit against fake/bogus invoices.""No inference or presumption or assumption can be deduced that mere availability of balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger would lead to suggest there was utilization."On the period of limitation and abuse of Section 74:"It is emerged from the chronology of events obtained on record that after the period of limitation stipulated in Section 73 is lapsed, the Adjudicating Authority has sought to initiate proceeding under Section 74... pertaining to transactions during August, 2017 to December, 2017, the proceeding under Section 74 is drawn up by issue of Summary of Show Cause Notice and Demand Show Cause Notice, both dated 26.07.2024 conspicuously after 8 years of the alleged transactions."On interest under Section 50:"The Clarification dated 17.07.2023 read juxtaposed with provisions of Rule 88B there is no ambiguity that when the Electronic Credit Ledger has sufficient balance left for adjustment of reversal of input tax credit no interest is chargeable or payable under Section 50."On penalty and double taxation:"Since there is no tax implication in the instant case, as the matter related to wrong availment of input tax credit on account of fake/bogus invoices issued by the supplier and the petitioner has reversed the alleged amount of input tax credit prior to initiation of proceeding under Section 74, the imposition of penalty cannot be a mechanical exercise of power and, thus such order is unsustainable.""Once it is conceded by the Revenue that the amount of input tax credit for a sum of Rs.4,39,970/- has been reversed, raising demand to the same without giving due credit to such reversal is unethical and without authority of law. In such an event, since net tax effect would be 'zero', thereby no penalty would be imposable."On bona fides of the petitioner:"Nonetheless, the petitioner has shown bona fide by reversing the amount of input tax credit the moment a letter from the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) was issued bringing such conduct of the supplier to his notice." FINAL VERDICTBoth writ petitions allowed. The Order-in-Original dated 03.02.2025 passed under Section 74 — confirming demand of Rs.4,39,970/-, interest under Section 50, and penalty of Rs.4,39,970/- — is quashed. No order as to costs.   

Manoja Kumar Nayak vs Commissioner, 08-04-2026
Validity of initiation of proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and levy of tax, interest under Section 50, and penalty — where ITC availed from an alleged non-existent supplier had already been voluntarily reversed by the taxpayer prior to

BACKGROUNDThe petitioner, Manoja Kumar Nayak , engaged in transportation and works contract, availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs.4,39,970/- (IGST) during August–December 2017 on the strength of invoices issued by  Auxesia Traders, Kolkata . The said supplier was subsequently found to be a non-existent/fictitious entity, based on an Alert Notice No.11/2023-24 dated 19.03.2024 issued by DGGI, Kolkata Zonal Unit, and on the statement of its proprietor Shri Tamoji Bose recorded in 2019. Upon receipt of a letter dated 12.07.2024 from the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, requesting reversal of the ITC, the petitioner proactively reversed the entire ITC of Rs.4,39,970/- through GSTR-3B returns filed for April 2023 (Rs.2,64,342/-) and June 2024 (Rs.1,75,128/-), well before issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner intimated this reversal to the Superintendent vide letter dated 17.07.2024, also pointing out that the Electronic Credit Ledger had a surplus balance exceeding the reversed amount at all material times, and therefore no interest under Section 50 was payable. Despite this, a Summary Show Cause Notice and Demand Show Cause Notice both dated 26.07.2024 were issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The petitioner filed a reply dated 30.01.2025 reiterating the voluntary reversal and surplus ECL balance. Ignoring the reply, the Adjudicating Authority passed Order-in-Original dated 03.02.2025 confirming demand of Rs.4,39,970/- (IGST), interest under Section 50, and penalty of Rs.4,39,970/- under Section 74 — solely on the basis of the DGGI Alert Notice, without any independent inquiry. Both petitioners (the second being M/s. Babamani Roadways & Borewells, similarly situated) filed writ petitions before the Orissa High Court challenging these orders. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim / Near-Verbatim)On mechanical invocation of Section 74 without independent inquiry:"The Adjudicating Authority without independent application of mind merely based on Alert Notice dated 19.03.2024 received from the DGGI, Kolkata Zonal Unit traversed his authority under Section 74 of the GST Act.""Thus, it can be seen from the approach made by the Adjudicating Authority that he blindly followed the Alert Notice of the DGGI, without undertaking any independent inquiry to ascertain credibility of such allegation qua the petitioner... Hence, discrediting such inchoate material being utilised for the purpose of raising demand of tax, interest and penalty under Section 74 this Court thus finds the determination of liability null and invalid in absence of any independent inquiry being carried out to verify the allegation contained in the Alert Notice of the DGGI.""Allegation against supplier vide Alert Notice No.11/2023-24, dated 19.03.2024 would not ipso facto empower the Adjudicating Authority to initiate action against the recipient (petitioner) under Section 74. The language employed in Section 74 suggests that strong and tangible material must be available on record to suggest that the petitioner had the conscious and active involvement in such dubious transactions."On supplier's default not ipso facto establishing recipient's fraud:"It may be highlighted that input tax credit could be availed erroneously or on a mistaken interpretation of law. Therefore, it would not be apposite to form an opinion that in each and every case where the supplier admits or defaults, it would lead to infer that the recipient fraudulently in order to evade tax has availed the input tax credit against fake/bogus invoices.""No inference or presumption or assumption can be deduced that mere availability of balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger would lead to suggest there was utilization."On the period of limitation and abuse of Section 74:"It is emerged from the chronology of events obtained on record that after the period of limitation stipulated in Section 73 is lapsed, the Adjudicating Authority has sought to initiate proceeding under Section 74... pertaining to transactions during August, 2017 to December, 2017, the proceeding under Section 74 is drawn up by issue of Summary of Show Cause Notice and Demand Show Cause Notice, both dated 26.07.2024 conspicuously after 8 years of the alleged transactions."On interest under Section 50:"The Clarification dated 17.07.2023 read juxtaposed with provisions of Rule 88B there is no ambiguity that when the Electronic Credit Ledger has sufficient balance left for adjustment of reversal of input tax credit no interest is chargeable or payable under Section 50."On penalty and double taxation:"Since there is no tax implication in the instant case, as the matter related to wrong availment of input tax credit on account of fake/bogus invoices issued by the supplier and the petitioner has reversed the alleged amount of input tax credit prior to initiation of proceeding under Section 74, the imposition of penalty cannot be a mechanical exercise of power and, thus such order is unsustainable.""Once it is conceded by the Revenue that the amount of input tax credit for a sum of Rs.4,39,970/- has been reversed, raising demand to the same without giving due credit to such reversal is unethical and without authority of law. In such an event, since net tax effect would be 'zero', thereby no penalty would be imposable."On bona fides of the petitioner:"Nonetheless, the petitioner has shown bona fide by reversing the amount of input tax credit the moment a letter from the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) was issued bringing such conduct of the supplier to his notice." FINAL VERDICTBoth writ petitions allowed. The Order-in-Original dated 03.02.2025 passed under Section 74 — confirming demand of Rs.4,39,970/-, interest under Section 50, and penalty of Rs.4,39,970/- — is quashed. No order as to costs.   

View Download
48Karan Agencies & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.02-04-2026Blocking of ITC and Constitutional Validity of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act. View Download

BackgroundThe batch of petitions involved common questions of fact and law concerning show-cause notices and pre-intimation notices issued by the department proposing action for blocking the petitioners' ITC. The reasons cited by the department varied, including allegations that suppliers were unregistered entities and that fraudulent ITC had been availed on the basis of bogus invoices without actual movement of goods or services.The petitioners challenged the departmental action as well as the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, contending that the provision imposed an undue burden on recipients and was arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution.Court ObservationThe Court observed that the CGST Act and the Rules constitute a complete code governing the framework within which the department is required to act. While blocking of ITC has adverse consequences and affects the right of registered persons to carry on business, each matter must be examined on its own facts to determine whether the departmental action is based on tangible material and whether there is a rational basis for invoking the statutory machinery. The Court also observed that fake or bogus ITC cannot be countenanced under the law.The Court held that show-cause and pre-intimation notices have to be decided on the facts of each individual case and that collective adjudication on the merits of individual issues was not possible. It further held that although the validity of a statute can be challenged under Article 226 where the facts disclose legal injury, such a challenge in the present petitions was premature before adjudication of the show-cause notices.Final VerdictThe Court directed that where show-cause notices had been issued, the petitioners would be permitted to file their replies, if not already filed, within two weeks, after which the notices were to be adjudicated in accordance with law after considering all factual and legal contentions raised by the petitioners.For matters where only pre-show-cause intimations had been issued and objections had already been filed, the concerned authorities were directed to consider the objections expeditiously and provide an opportunity of hearing, deciding whether a show-cause notice was required or the proceedings should be dropped, within eight weeks. All contentions were kept open, including the challenge to Section 16(2)(c), which could be raised in appropriate proceedings if necessary. The petitions were accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.  

Karan Agencies & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 02-04-2026
Blocking of ITC and Constitutional Validity of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act.

BackgroundThe batch of petitions involved common questions of fact and law concerning show-cause notices and pre-intimation notices issued by the department proposing action for blocking the petitioners' ITC. The reasons cited by the department varied, including allegations that suppliers were unregistered entities and that fraudulent ITC had been availed on the basis of bogus invoices without actual movement of goods or services.The petitioners challenged the departmental action as well as the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, contending that the provision imposed an undue burden on recipients and was arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution.Court ObservationThe Court observed that the CGST Act and the Rules constitute a complete code governing the framework within which the department is required to act. While blocking of ITC has adverse consequences and affects the right of registered persons to carry on business, each matter must be examined on its own facts to determine whether the departmental action is based on tangible material and whether there is a rational basis for invoking the statutory machinery. The Court also observed that fake or bogus ITC cannot be countenanced under the law.The Court held that show-cause and pre-intimation notices have to be decided on the facts of each individual case and that collective adjudication on the merits of individual issues was not possible. It further held that although the validity of a statute can be challenged under Article 226 where the facts disclose legal injury, such a challenge in the present petitions was premature before adjudication of the show-cause notices.Final VerdictThe Court directed that where show-cause notices had been issued, the petitioners would be permitted to file their replies, if not already filed, within two weeks, after which the notices were to be adjudicated in accordance with law after considering all factual and legal contentions raised by the petitioners.For matters where only pre-show-cause intimations had been issued and objections had already been filed, the concerned authorities were directed to consider the objections expeditiously and provide an opportunity of hearing, deciding whether a show-cause notice was required or the proceedings should be dropped, within eight weeks. All contentions were kept open, including the challenge to Section 16(2)(c), which could be raised in appropriate proceedings if necessary. The petitions were accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.  

View Download
49Florida Solvent Private Limited v. Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise & Ors. 01-04-2026Cancellation of GST registration under Sections 29(2)(a), 29(2)(e) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21(e) of CGST Rules, 2017 on alleged fraudulent ITC. Issue relating to denial of Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 and validity of View Download

Case Facts:The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 04.12.2025 cancelling its GST registration ab-initio. The allegation was that the petitioner availed fraudulent ITC from suppliers whose registrations were cancelled. The petitioner contended that relevant documents were furnished and transactions were bona fide, and cancellation was based only on suppliers’ status.Court Decision:The impugned order lacked cogent findings on whether ITC was validly availed in the normal course of business.Mere cancellation of suppliers’ registration cannot by itself justify cancellation of petitioner’s registration.The authority failed to examine documents and record findings on the alleged illegality of ITC.The order was arbitrary due to non-application of mind.The impugned order cancelling GST registration was set aside.Matter remanded for fresh consideration after granting hearing to the petitioner.Authorities permitted to continue investigation and take action in accordance with law.All contentions kept open.

Florida Solvent Private Limited v. Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise & Ors. 01-04-2026
Cancellation of GST registration under Sections 29(2)(a), 29(2)(e) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21(e) of CGST Rules, 2017 on alleged fraudulent ITC. Issue relating to denial of Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 and validity of

Case Facts:The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 04.12.2025 cancelling its GST registration ab-initio. The allegation was that the petitioner availed fraudulent ITC from suppliers whose registrations were cancelled. The petitioner contended that relevant documents were furnished and transactions were bona fide, and cancellation was based only on suppliers’ status.Court Decision:The impugned order lacked cogent findings on whether ITC was validly availed in the normal course of business.Mere cancellation of suppliers’ registration cannot by itself justify cancellation of petitioner’s registration.The authority failed to examine documents and record findings on the alleged illegality of ITC.The order was arbitrary due to non-application of mind.The impugned order cancelling GST registration was set aside.Matter remanded for fresh consideration after granting hearing to the petitioner.Authorities permitted to continue investigation and take action in accordance with law.All contentions kept open.

View Download
50Avik Televentures Private Limited v. Office of the GST Officer, 30-03-2026Whether an Order-in-Original confirming a substantial GST demand is liable to be quashed where the Adjudicating Authority issued a View Download

BackgroundThe Petitioner, engaged in trading and export of branded mobile phones, was subjected to a Special Audit for Financial Year 2021-22 appointed under Section 66 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017 vide email dated 06.12.2024. Upon completion of the audit, observations were communicated on 03.03.2025, to which the Petitioner filed a detailed response on 02.04.2025. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 11.09.2025, based on the special audit report dated 27.03.2025, raised a demand of Rs. 33,54,21,609/- requiring discharge within 7 days. A Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2025 was subsequently issued proposing a demand of Rs. 58,02,79,384/-, with a reply deadline and personal hearing fixed for 28.10.2025. The Petitioner filed a detailed reply along with supporting documents on 24.10.2025, having sought a short adjournment of the hearing. Then, on 27.12.2025 at 05:20 PM, a communication styled as "Reminder-1" was issued calling for additional documents by 29.12.2025 and fixing a personal hearing for 30.12.2025 — the intervening 28.12.2025 being a Sunday. Despite a request for a 7-day extension made on 29.12.2025, the Order-in-Original was passed on 31.12.2025 confirming a demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- (including tax, interest and penalty) — on the very same day as the last personal hearing.Critical Timeline27.12.2025 — 05:20 PMReminder-1 issued demanding voluminous documents including certified bank statements by 29.12.2025; personal hearing fixed for 30.12.202528.12.2025Sunday — no working day available29.12.2025Petitioner sought 7-day adjournment — request not considered30.12.2025 & 31.12.2025Personal hearings held; petitioner's authorised representative participated; additional reply filed on 31.12.202531.12.2025 — same dayOIO passed confirming demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- on the very day the hearing concluded — the last date under Section 73(10) limitationSeparate SCN dated 04.07.2025 for the same FY 2021-22, also adjudicated on 31.12.2025, resulted in the Petitioner being discharged on all counts — including the very same ITC issues — creating a directly contradictory finding in the impugned OIO.Relevant FactsThe Petitioner raised three distinct grounds: first, that the opportunity of hearing was illusory and not real — Reminder-1 was issued at 05:20 PM on 27.12.2025, with 28.12.2025 being a Sunday, leaving less than one effective working day to collate voluminous documents including certified bank statements and records running into several hundred pages; second, that the OIO was passed with undue haste — the personal hearing concluded and the OIO was signed on the very same date (31.12.2025), the last date permissible under Section 73(10), raising a legitimate apprehension that material placed on record was not adequately considered; and third, that parallel proceedings were run on the same subject matter for the same FY, with a separate SCN dated 04.07.2025 having been adjudicated on the same date resulting in complete discharge of the Petitioner, rendering the impugned OIO internally contradictory. Additionally, a complete copy of the OIO was not furnished, only a partial copy having been placed on record. The Revenue contended that the petition was not maintainable given an appeal remedy under Section 107, that the petitioner had appeared and filed an additional reply, that the two SCNs pertained to distinct transactions, and that the order was reasoned.Court Observations (Verbatim)"Reminder-1 was issued on 27.12.2025 at 05:20 PM, calling upon the petitioner to furnish additional documents by 29.12.2025 and to appear for personal hearing on 30.12.2025. Admittedly, 28.12.2025 was a Sunday. The petitioner, therefore, had less than one effective working day to collate the material and respond."— Para 28"The nature of documents sought, including certified bank statements and voluminous records running into several hundred pages, could not have been reasonably procured and furnished within such a truncated timeline. The petitioner, in fact, sought a short adjournment of seven days on 29.12.2025. The record does not indicate that the said request was duly considered."— Para 29"Though it is the stand of the respondent that the petitioner participated in the personal hearing on 30.12.2025 and 31.12.2025, mere participation cannot be constructed as compliance with the requirement of affording a fair and effective opportunity. The opportunity contemplated under Sections 66(4) and 75(4) of the CGST/DGST Act is not a mere formality but must be real, reasonable and effective."— Para 30"The timeline, as notice hereinabove, clearly demonstrates that the opportunity afforded to the petitioner was illusory. The petitioner was neither granted adequate time to place the requisite material on record nor to effectively respond to the issues raised in the special audit and the SCN."— Para 31"The submission of the respondent that the petitioner had earlier filed a reply to the SCN does not dilute the requirement of granting a reasonable opportunity when additional material is sought to be relied upon. Once further documents were called for and a hearing was fixed, the respondent was under an obligation to ensure that sufficient time was afforded."— Para 32"This Court also finds merit in the contention of the petitioner that the OIO has been passed with undue haste. The personal hearing concluded on 31.12.2025 and the OIO has been passed on the very same date, confirming a substantial liability. In the facts of the present case, such haste raises a legitimate apprehension that the material placed on record may not have been adequately considered by the Adjudicating Authority."— Para 33"The contention of the respondent regarding availability of an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Act does not merit acceptance in the present case. It is well settled that where an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice the existence of an alternate remedy would not operate as a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction."— Para 34Final VerdictPetition allowed. OIO dated 31.12.2025 confirming demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- quashed and set aside. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication as a "last chance" — Petitioner to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 06.04.2026 with written submissions and required documents. Authority directed to grant real opportunity of hearing, consider all contentions, and pass an expeditious reasoned order. Court has not gone into the merits; all rights and remedies of both parties kept open.

Avik Televentures Private Limited v. Office of the GST Officer, 30-03-2026
Whether an Order-in-Original confirming a substantial GST demand is liable to be quashed where the Adjudicating Authority issued a

BackgroundThe Petitioner, engaged in trading and export of branded mobile phones, was subjected to a Special Audit for Financial Year 2021-22 appointed under Section 66 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017 vide email dated 06.12.2024. Upon completion of the audit, observations were communicated on 03.03.2025, to which the Petitioner filed a detailed response on 02.04.2025. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 11.09.2025, based on the special audit report dated 27.03.2025, raised a demand of Rs. 33,54,21,609/- requiring discharge within 7 days. A Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2025 was subsequently issued proposing a demand of Rs. 58,02,79,384/-, with a reply deadline and personal hearing fixed for 28.10.2025. The Petitioner filed a detailed reply along with supporting documents on 24.10.2025, having sought a short adjournment of the hearing. Then, on 27.12.2025 at 05:20 PM, a communication styled as "Reminder-1" was issued calling for additional documents by 29.12.2025 and fixing a personal hearing for 30.12.2025 — the intervening 28.12.2025 being a Sunday. Despite a request for a 7-day extension made on 29.12.2025, the Order-in-Original was passed on 31.12.2025 confirming a demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- (including tax, interest and penalty) — on the very same day as the last personal hearing.Critical Timeline27.12.2025 — 05:20 PMReminder-1 issued demanding voluminous documents including certified bank statements by 29.12.2025; personal hearing fixed for 30.12.202528.12.2025Sunday — no working day available29.12.2025Petitioner sought 7-day adjournment — request not considered30.12.2025 & 31.12.2025Personal hearings held; petitioner's authorised representative participated; additional reply filed on 31.12.202531.12.2025 — same dayOIO passed confirming demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- on the very day the hearing concluded — the last date under Section 73(10) limitationSeparate SCN dated 04.07.2025 for the same FY 2021-22, also adjudicated on 31.12.2025, resulted in the Petitioner being discharged on all counts — including the very same ITC issues — creating a directly contradictory finding in the impugned OIO.Relevant FactsThe Petitioner raised three distinct grounds: first, that the opportunity of hearing was illusory and not real — Reminder-1 was issued at 05:20 PM on 27.12.2025, with 28.12.2025 being a Sunday, leaving less than one effective working day to collate voluminous documents including certified bank statements and records running into several hundred pages; second, that the OIO was passed with undue haste — the personal hearing concluded and the OIO was signed on the very same date (31.12.2025), the last date permissible under Section 73(10), raising a legitimate apprehension that material placed on record was not adequately considered; and third, that parallel proceedings were run on the same subject matter for the same FY, with a separate SCN dated 04.07.2025 having been adjudicated on the same date resulting in complete discharge of the Petitioner, rendering the impugned OIO internally contradictory. Additionally, a complete copy of the OIO was not furnished, only a partial copy having been placed on record. The Revenue contended that the petition was not maintainable given an appeal remedy under Section 107, that the petitioner had appeared and filed an additional reply, that the two SCNs pertained to distinct transactions, and that the order was reasoned.Court Observations (Verbatim)"Reminder-1 was issued on 27.12.2025 at 05:20 PM, calling upon the petitioner to furnish additional documents by 29.12.2025 and to appear for personal hearing on 30.12.2025. Admittedly, 28.12.2025 was a Sunday. The petitioner, therefore, had less than one effective working day to collate the material and respond."— Para 28"The nature of documents sought, including certified bank statements and voluminous records running into several hundred pages, could not have been reasonably procured and furnished within such a truncated timeline. The petitioner, in fact, sought a short adjournment of seven days on 29.12.2025. The record does not indicate that the said request was duly considered."— Para 29"Though it is the stand of the respondent that the petitioner participated in the personal hearing on 30.12.2025 and 31.12.2025, mere participation cannot be constructed as compliance with the requirement of affording a fair and effective opportunity. The opportunity contemplated under Sections 66(4) and 75(4) of the CGST/DGST Act is not a mere formality but must be real, reasonable and effective."— Para 30"The timeline, as notice hereinabove, clearly demonstrates that the opportunity afforded to the petitioner was illusory. The petitioner was neither granted adequate time to place the requisite material on record nor to effectively respond to the issues raised in the special audit and the SCN."— Para 31"The submission of the respondent that the petitioner had earlier filed a reply to the SCN does not dilute the requirement of granting a reasonable opportunity when additional material is sought to be relied upon. Once further documents were called for and a hearing was fixed, the respondent was under an obligation to ensure that sufficient time was afforded."— Para 32"This Court also finds merit in the contention of the petitioner that the OIO has been passed with undue haste. The personal hearing concluded on 31.12.2025 and the OIO has been passed on the very same date, confirming a substantial liability. In the facts of the present case, such haste raises a legitimate apprehension that the material placed on record may not have been adequately considered by the Adjudicating Authority."— Para 33"The contention of the respondent regarding availability of an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Act does not merit acceptance in the present case. It is well settled that where an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice the existence of an alternate remedy would not operate as a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction."— Para 34Final VerdictPetition allowed. OIO dated 31.12.2025 confirming demand of Rs. 26,72,64,497/- quashed and set aside. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication as a "last chance" — Petitioner to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 06.04.2026 with written submissions and required documents. Authority directed to grant real opportunity of hearing, consider all contentions, and pass an expeditious reasoned order. Court has not gone into the merits; all rights and remedies of both parties kept open.

View Download
Total: 198 case laws