Facts The issue before the Court was whether purchasing dealers who paid tax to registered selling dealers are entitled to Input Tax Credit even if the selling dealers failed to deposit the tax with the Government. The selling dealers were registered at the time of transactions but later defaulted and their registrations were cancelled. The Delhi High Court held that the purchasing dealers were bona fide and entitled to ITC. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. Court Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision. It held that where transactions and invoices are genuine and the selling dealer was registered at the time of transaction, ITC cannot be denied to bona fide purchasing dealers. The Court found no reason to interfere with the grant of ITC after due verification. Cases Referred by Court:• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd.
Commissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi v. Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. 09-10-2025
Facts The issue before the Court was whether purchasing dealers who paid tax to registered selling dealers are entitled to Input Tax Credit even if the selling dealers failed to deposit the tax with the Government. The selling dealers were registered at the time of transactions but later defaulted and their registrations were cancelled. The Delhi High Court held that the purchasing dealers were bona fide and entitled to ITC. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. Court Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision. It held that where transactions and invoices are genuine and the selling dealer was registered at the time of transaction, ITC cannot be denied to bona fide purchasing dealers. The Court found no reason to interfere with the grant of ITC after due verification. Cases Referred by Court:• On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi • Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd.
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)
Milroc Good Earth Developers vs Union of India & Ors. 09-10-2025
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)
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged a bank attachment notice issued for recovery of tax dues of a company in which he was a director. An assessment order had been passed against the company for the tax period 2018–19. The petitioner claimed resignation from the company and sought immunity under Section 89(1), submitting a representation to authorities. The company had separately challenged the assessment order, which was pending before the Court. Court Decision:The Court held that the issue of petitioner’s liability under Section 89 requires adjudication. It directed the authorities to treat the impugned attachment notice as a show cause notice and decide the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation within 30 days, and the authority to pass orders within two months thereafter. The bank attachment was ordered to be lifted pending such adjudication, subject to conditions.
Subir Ghosh v. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors. 17-09-2025
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged a bank attachment notice issued for recovery of tax dues of a company in which he was a director. An assessment order had been passed against the company for the tax period 2018–19. The petitioner claimed resignation from the company and sought immunity under Section 89(1), submitting a representation to authorities. The company had separately challenged the assessment order, which was pending before the Court. Court Decision:The Court held that the issue of petitioner’s liability under Section 89 requires adjudication. It directed the authorities to treat the impugned attachment notice as a show cause notice and decide the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation within 30 days, and the authority to pass orders within two months thereafter. The bank attachment was ordered to be lifted pending such adjudication, subject to conditions.
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)
Sharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) & Another 17-09-2025
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 was subjected to an assessment order dated 02.08.2025 raising a demand of over ₹244 crores. Prior to and immediately after the assessment, the authorities provisionally attached bank accounts and issued recovery notice dated 19.08.2025, resulting in recovery of ₹170 crores. Due to attachment and recovery, the petitioner could not file appeal as it was unable to arrange the statutory pre-deposit. The petitioner challenged the recovery, attachment, and conditions imposed by the Department.Court Decision:The Court held that once the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) is satisfied, a deemed stay of recovery operates and further coercive steps are not permissible. It directed that the amount already recovered be adjusted towards the 10% pre-deposit and the balance be refunded upon furnishing undertaking by the petitioner. The Court further held that restrictions on use of funds can be imposed only to safeguard revenue interests, and directed the petitioner to maintain specified balance and retain sale proceeds till disposal of appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for refund subject to undertakings and adjustment of pre-deposit.
Wingtech Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy 03-09-2025
Facts :The petitioner was subjected to an assessment order dated 02.08.2025 raising a demand of over ₹244 crores. Prior to and immediately after the assessment, the authorities provisionally attached bank accounts and issued recovery notice dated 19.08.2025, resulting in recovery of ₹170 crores. Due to attachment and recovery, the petitioner could not file appeal as it was unable to arrange the statutory pre-deposit. The petitioner challenged the recovery, attachment, and conditions imposed by the Department.Court Decision:The Court held that once the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) is satisfied, a deemed stay of recovery operates and further coercive steps are not permissible. It directed that the amount already recovered be adjusted towards the 10% pre-deposit and the balance be refunded upon furnishing undertaking by the petitioner. The Court further held that restrictions on use of funds can be imposed only to safeguard revenue interests, and directed the petitioner to maintain specified balance and retain sale proceeds till disposal of appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for refund subject to undertakings and adjustment of pre-deposit.
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
Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors. 26-08-2025
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
BackgroundA Show Cause Notice was issued on 25th September 2023 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, with no date for personal hearing fixed therein. The Petitioner filed its reply on 25th October 2023 with supporting documents. Thereafter, without affording a personal hearing, an impugned order dated 30th December 2023 was passed raising a demand of Rs. 15,39,686/-. The Petitioner, unable to challenge the order immediately due to a dispute with his GST Consultant (who had not informed the Petitioner of the order), filed a Rectification Application on 27th March 2024 under Section 161 of the Act. The Rectification Application was rejected on 28th June 2024 by a one-line mechanical order holding the application to be "unsatisfactory" without providing any reasons as to why no error was apparent on the face of the record. The Petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition challenging both the original demand order dated 30th December 2023 and the Rectification Order dated 28th June 2024.Relevant FactsThe Petitioner raised two distinct challenges. First, regarding the original demand order, the Petitioner contended it was passed without affording a personal hearing, as the SCN had not fixed any hearing date. The Revenue countered that the Petitioner had filed a reply, had an opportunity of hearing and an efficacious appeal remedy. The Court required the Petitioner to explain the delay through an additional affidavit — the explanation offered was a dispute with the GST Consultant which resulted in unawareness of the impugned order. Second, regarding the Rectification Order, the Petitioner contended that it was dismissed mechanically — without applying mind, without recording any reason as to why no error was apparent on the face of the record, and without affording the Petitioner a hearing before rejecting the application adversely. The Rectification Order merely stated: "I have gone through rectification application and observed that no error/mistake is apparent on record as such I reject the application for rectification" — without any elaboration or reasoning whatsoever.Third Proviso to Section 161 — Key Statutory Text:"Provided also that where such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification."Court Observations (Verbatim)"Considering the above as also the facts of the case, in the opinion of the Court no ground for entertaining the challenge against the impugned order has been made out as the Petitioner had an opportunity of filing a reply which it did. Further the delay is not sufficiently explained. The order is of December 2023 and the writ petition has been filed even after the limitation period for filing the appeal has lapsed."— Para 6 (on the original demand order — challenge rejected)"The above position of law is clear to the effect that it is necessary to afford a hearing to the assessee when the rectification order adversely affects the said assessee. The said position would also prevail when the rectification application has been preferred by the assessee and the same is being rejected without providing reasons for non-consideration/insufficiency of the grounds raised by the said assessee. This practice, in our view, would be in line with the intent of the third proviso to Section 161 of the Act which stipulates compliance with the principle of natural justice to protect the interest of the assessees."— Para 9 (Court's own finding on Section 161)"It is clear from a reading of the said order, that the same is a mechanical order passed without providing reasons as to why there is no error apparent on the face of the record."— Para 11 (on the Rectification Order dated 28th June 2024)From Suriya Cement Agency v. State Tax Officer (Madras HC, W.P.(MD) No. 7338 of 2024 — relied upon via HVR Solar):"The Provisio indicates that when an order is being made adverse to the assessee, then he should be given an opportunity of being heard when the rectification adversely affects any person. The principles of natural justice had been inbuilt by way of the 3rd Proviso to Section 161. If pursuant to a Rectification Application, if a rectification is made and if it adversely affects the assesse, Proviso 3 contemplates an opportunity of hearing to be given. However, when an Rectification Application is made at the instance of assessee and the rectification is being sought to be rejected without considering the reasons for rectification or by giving reasons as to why such rectification could not be entertained. It is also imperative that the assessee to be put on notice."— Para 8 of Suriya Cement Agency, as quoted in Para 8 of the present judgmentFinal VerdictOriginal Order — Against AssesseeChallenge to demand order dated 30.12.2023 refused. Delay not sufficiently explained; writ filed after appeal limitation period lapsed; petitioner had filed a reply.Rectification Order — For AssesseeRectification Order dated 28.06.2024 set aside as mechanical and without reasons. Fresh hearing directed; reasoned order to be passed thereafter.Appellate remedy of the Petitioner after the fresh rectification order is expressly kept open. Petition disposed of accordingly.Cases Referred by CourtHVR Solar Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 67 & Anr.Relied upon2025:DHC:2476-DB — Delhi High Court (Division Bench) — Considered the third proviso to Section 161 of the CGST Act; basis for the court's analysis in the present caseSuriya Cement Agency v. State Tax OfficerRelied uponW.P. (MD) No. 7338 of 2024 — Madras High Court — Decided on 21 November 2024 — Held that rejection of a rectification application without hearing the assessee and without recording reasons is impermissible under the third proviso to Section 161; assessee must be put on notice even when the application is filed at the instance of the assessee and is being rejected
Raman Enterprises v. Commissioner of SGST Delhi & Anr. 22-08-2025
BackgroundA Show Cause Notice was issued on 25th September 2023 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, with no date for personal hearing fixed therein. The Petitioner filed its reply on 25th October 2023 with supporting documents. Thereafter, without affording a personal hearing, an impugned order dated 30th December 2023 was passed raising a demand of Rs. 15,39,686/-. The Petitioner, unable to challenge the order immediately due to a dispute with his GST Consultant (who had not informed the Petitioner of the order), filed a Rectification Application on 27th March 2024 under Section 161 of the Act. The Rectification Application was rejected on 28th June 2024 by a one-line mechanical order holding the application to be "unsatisfactory" without providing any reasons as to why no error was apparent on the face of the record. The Petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition challenging both the original demand order dated 30th December 2023 and the Rectification Order dated 28th June 2024.Relevant FactsThe Petitioner raised two distinct challenges. First, regarding the original demand order, the Petitioner contended it was passed without affording a personal hearing, as the SCN had not fixed any hearing date. The Revenue countered that the Petitioner had filed a reply, had an opportunity of hearing and an efficacious appeal remedy. The Court required the Petitioner to explain the delay through an additional affidavit — the explanation offered was a dispute with the GST Consultant which resulted in unawareness of the impugned order. Second, regarding the Rectification Order, the Petitioner contended that it was dismissed mechanically — without applying mind, without recording any reason as to why no error was apparent on the face of the record, and without affording the Petitioner a hearing before rejecting the application adversely. The Rectification Order merely stated: "I have gone through rectification application and observed that no error/mistake is apparent on record as such I reject the application for rectification" — without any elaboration or reasoning whatsoever.Third Proviso to Section 161 — Key Statutory Text:"Provided also that where such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification."Court Observations (Verbatim)"Considering the above as also the facts of the case, in the opinion of the Court no ground for entertaining the challenge against the impugned order has been made out as the Petitioner had an opportunity of filing a reply which it did. Further the delay is not sufficiently explained. The order is of December 2023 and the writ petition has been filed even after the limitation period for filing the appeal has lapsed."— Para 6 (on the original demand order — challenge rejected)"The above position of law is clear to the effect that it is necessary to afford a hearing to the assessee when the rectification order adversely affects the said assessee. The said position would also prevail when the rectification application has been preferred by the assessee and the same is being rejected without providing reasons for non-consideration/insufficiency of the grounds raised by the said assessee. This practice, in our view, would be in line with the intent of the third proviso to Section 161 of the Act which stipulates compliance with the principle of natural justice to protect the interest of the assessees."— Para 9 (Court's own finding on Section 161)"It is clear from a reading of the said order, that the same is a mechanical order passed without providing reasons as to why there is no error apparent on the face of the record."— Para 11 (on the Rectification Order dated 28th June 2024)From Suriya Cement Agency v. State Tax Officer (Madras HC, W.P.(MD) No. 7338 of 2024 — relied upon via HVR Solar):"The Provisio indicates that when an order is being made adverse to the assessee, then he should be given an opportunity of being heard when the rectification adversely affects any person. The principles of natural justice had been inbuilt by way of the 3rd Proviso to Section 161. If pursuant to a Rectification Application, if a rectification is made and if it adversely affects the assesse, Proviso 3 contemplates an opportunity of hearing to be given. However, when an Rectification Application is made at the instance of assessee and the rectification is being sought to be rejected without considering the reasons for rectification or by giving reasons as to why such rectification could not be entertained. It is also imperative that the assessee to be put on notice."— Para 8 of Suriya Cement Agency, as quoted in Para 8 of the present judgmentFinal VerdictOriginal Order — Against AssesseeChallenge to demand order dated 30.12.2023 refused. Delay not sufficiently explained; writ filed after appeal limitation period lapsed; petitioner had filed a reply.Rectification Order — For AssesseeRectification Order dated 28.06.2024 set aside as mechanical and without reasons. Fresh hearing directed; reasoned order to be passed thereafter.Appellate remedy of the Petitioner after the fresh rectification order is expressly kept open. Petition disposed of accordingly.Cases Referred by CourtHVR Solar Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 67 & Anr.Relied upon2025:DHC:2476-DB — Delhi High Court (Division Bench) — Considered the third proviso to Section 161 of the CGST Act; basis for the court's analysis in the present caseSuriya Cement Agency v. State Tax OfficerRelied uponW.P. (MD) No. 7338 of 2024 — Madras High Court — Decided on 21 November 2024 — Held that rejection of a rectification application without hearing the assessee and without recording reasons is impermissible under the third proviso to Section 161; assessee must be put on notice even when the application is filed at the instance of the assessee and is being rejected
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged two GST orders and corresponding DRC-07 forms issued in 2025. For one order, the issue related to consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years. For the second order, the petitioner argued limitation as DRC-07 was uploaded after the order date. The department contended that the order had already been communicated through email prior to DRC-07 upload.Court Decision:Held that consolidated notices for multiple financial years are permissible under Sections 73 and 74 using the expression “period”.Held that communication of order through email constitutes valid service under Section 169.Observed that delay in uploading DRC-07 does not render the order time-barred if order is otherwise communicated.Noted that gap between order and DRC-07 upload can occur, especially in cases involving multiple noticees.Permitted petitioner to file appeal under Section 107 and raise limitation issue therein.Directed that if appeal is filed within stipulated time (by 30.09.2025), it shall not be dismissed on limitation and be decided on merits.Cases Referred by Court:Ambika Traders through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, 2025:DHC:6181-DBRaj International v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors., W.P.(C) 4096/2025Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. Authority under Shop and Establishment Act (Madras High Court)
Suresh Kumar vs Commissioner CGST Delhi North 13-08-2025
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged two GST orders and corresponding DRC-07 forms issued in 2025. For one order, the issue related to consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years. For the second order, the petitioner argued limitation as DRC-07 was uploaded after the order date. The department contended that the order had already been communicated through email prior to DRC-07 upload.Court Decision:Held that consolidated notices for multiple financial years are permissible under Sections 73 and 74 using the expression “period”.Held that communication of order through email constitutes valid service under Section 169.Observed that delay in uploading DRC-07 does not render the order time-barred if order is otherwise communicated.Noted that gap between order and DRC-07 upload can occur, especially in cases involving multiple noticees.Permitted petitioner to file appeal under Section 107 and raise limitation issue therein.Directed that if appeal is filed within stipulated time (by 30.09.2025), it shall not be dismissed on limitation and be decided on merits.Cases Referred by Court:Ambika Traders through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, 2025:DHC:6181-DBRaj International v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors., W.P.(C) 4096/2025Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. Authority under Shop and Establishment Act (Madras High Court)
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
Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta vs Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North 29-07-2025
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 appellant was arrested on 17-8-2023 in Crime No. 652 of 2023 registered with the Satara City Police Station, Maharashtra, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. The allegation was that the appellant, while employed as a business development manager with the complainant’s advertising business and training institute, siphoned off about Rs. 1,66,00,000 (recorded by the Supreme Court at one place as Rs. 1,60,00,000) from the legitimate funds of the complainant. After the Trial Court declined to release him on regular bail, the appellant approached the High Court of Bombay.FactsBefore the High Court, the appellant voluntarily filed an affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 22-3-2024, affirming that he would deposit Rs. 25,00,000 within five months to demonstrate his bona fides. On the basis of this undertaking, the High Court, by order dated 1-4-2024, granted regular bail subject (inter alia) to condition (i) requiring deposit of Rs. 25,00,000 in the Trial Court. The appellant secured his release pursuant to this order but failed to deposit the amount as undertaken on oath.The appellant first filed Interim Application No. 3106 of 2024 (on 6-8-2024) seeking relaxation of the deposit condition, but unconditionally withdrew that application on 23-6-2025. The original complainant thereafter filed Interim Application No. 4524 of 2024 seeking cancellation of bail. By the impugned order dated 1-7-2025, the High Court held that the appellant had foreclosed consideration of his bail on merits by voluntarily offering the deposit and had then reneged on it, and accordingly cancelled the bail in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, directing the appellant to surrender. The appellant challenged this cancellation before the Supreme Court and also pressed his plea for regular bail.Court’s Observations (verbatim)15. We have noticed over a period of time that orders of regular bail and anticipatory bail are being passed by different High Courts subject to deposit of some amount.16. We have come across cases like the one in hand where accused persons have gone to the extent of filing affidavits in the form of undertaking that they would deposit a particular amount within a particular period and then conveniently resile from such undertakings saying it is an onerous condition.17. In some cases, perhaps the accused may abide by such undertaking, but our experience so far has been that in many cases the accused later would not abide and flout the undertaking. In many cases it would be argued on behalf of the accused that he had never made such a statement and the court on its own had recorded in the order that the accused is ready and willing to deposit a particular amount. At times the entire blame is thrown on the lawyer in making such statement for the purpose of obtaining order of bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be. In such circumstances, the concerned court would be left with no other option but to cancel the bail either at the instance of the State or the original complainant.18. The case in hand is one in which the appellant on his own free will and volition filed an affidavit in the form of an undertaking before the High Court that he would deposit an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- but ultimately resiled to do so and the High Court had to cancel the bail. It was too much for the lawyer of the appellant to argue before the High Court that asking his client to deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- was unreasonable. It reflects on the professional ethics.19. By this order, we make it clear and that too in the form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate reliefs.20. The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and the Trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make.21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court.23. In the case in hand, so far as the plea for regular bail is concerned, we are not inclined to look into. The appellant has made a mockery of justice. He could be said to have abused the process of law. If at all the High Court wanted to release the appellant on bail, it should have first asked him to deposit the amount within a particular period of time and upon such deposit the appellant could have been released.24. Be that as it may, now we have made ourselves very clear that there shall not be a single order that the High Courts and the Trial Courts shall pass for grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on the basis of any accused or his/her family members giving an undertaking to deposit a particular amount. The plea shall be decided strictly on merits in accordance with law. If the case is made out on merits the court may exercise its discretion and if no case is made out on merits the court shall reject the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be. However, in any circumstances the High Courts or trial courts shall not pass a conditional order of regular bail or anticipatory bail.Final VerdictThe appeal was dismissed and the cancellation of bail was upheld; the appellant was directed to surrender and a cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed for gross abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court further directed that henceforth no Trial Court or High Court shall grant regular or anticipatory bail on the basis of any undertaking to deposit money, and that such pleas must be decided strictly on merits, with the order circulated to all High Courts.Cases Referred / Relied UponKundan Singh v. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise — relied upon by the High Court; deprecates the practice of foreclosing consideration of a bail application on merits by voluntarily offering monetary deposits and thereafter reneging on it.Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi — cited for the proposition that a criminal court exercising bail jurisdiction is not expected to act as a recovery agent and that financial deposit as a condition for bail is impermissible.Apurva Kirti Mehta v. State of Maharashtra — cited along with Ramesh Kumar for the same proposition on impermissibility of financial deposit as a bail condition.Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee — cited for the proposition that non-fulfilment of the terms of a compromise cannot, by itself, be the basis of granting or cancelling bail.
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 28-07-2025
BackgroundThe appellant was arrested on 17-8-2023 in Crime No. 652 of 2023 registered with the Satara City Police Station, Maharashtra, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. The allegation was that the appellant, while employed as a business development manager with the complainant’s advertising business and training institute, siphoned off about Rs. 1,66,00,000 (recorded by the Supreme Court at one place as Rs. 1,60,00,000) from the legitimate funds of the complainant. After the Trial Court declined to release him on regular bail, the appellant approached the High Court of Bombay.FactsBefore the High Court, the appellant voluntarily filed an affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 22-3-2024, affirming that he would deposit Rs. 25,00,000 within five months to demonstrate his bona fides. On the basis of this undertaking, the High Court, by order dated 1-4-2024, granted regular bail subject (inter alia) to condition (i) requiring deposit of Rs. 25,00,000 in the Trial Court. The appellant secured his release pursuant to this order but failed to deposit the amount as undertaken on oath.The appellant first filed Interim Application No. 3106 of 2024 (on 6-8-2024) seeking relaxation of the deposit condition, but unconditionally withdrew that application on 23-6-2025. The original complainant thereafter filed Interim Application No. 4524 of 2024 seeking cancellation of bail. By the impugned order dated 1-7-2025, the High Court held that the appellant had foreclosed consideration of his bail on merits by voluntarily offering the deposit and had then reneged on it, and accordingly cancelled the bail in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, directing the appellant to surrender. The appellant challenged this cancellation before the Supreme Court and also pressed his plea for regular bail.Court’s Observations (verbatim)15. We have noticed over a period of time that orders of regular bail and anticipatory bail are being passed by different High Courts subject to deposit of some amount.16. We have come across cases like the one in hand where accused persons have gone to the extent of filing affidavits in the form of undertaking that they would deposit a particular amount within a particular period and then conveniently resile from such undertakings saying it is an onerous condition.17. In some cases, perhaps the accused may abide by such undertaking, but our experience so far has been that in many cases the accused later would not abide and flout the undertaking. In many cases it would be argued on behalf of the accused that he had never made such a statement and the court on its own had recorded in the order that the accused is ready and willing to deposit a particular amount. At times the entire blame is thrown on the lawyer in making such statement for the purpose of obtaining order of bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be. In such circumstances, the concerned court would be left with no other option but to cancel the bail either at the instance of the State or the original complainant.18. The case in hand is one in which the appellant on his own free will and volition filed an affidavit in the form of an undertaking before the High Court that he would deposit an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- but ultimately resiled to do so and the High Court had to cancel the bail. It was too much for the lawyer of the appellant to argue before the High Court that asking his client to deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- was unreasonable. It reflects on the professional ethics.19. By this order, we make it clear and that too in the form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate reliefs.20. The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and the Trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make.21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court.23. In the case in hand, so far as the plea for regular bail is concerned, we are not inclined to look into. The appellant has made a mockery of justice. He could be said to have abused the process of law. If at all the High Court wanted to release the appellant on bail, it should have first asked him to deposit the amount within a particular period of time and upon such deposit the appellant could have been released.24. Be that as it may, now we have made ourselves very clear that there shall not be a single order that the High Courts and the Trial Courts shall pass for grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on the basis of any accused or his/her family members giving an undertaking to deposit a particular amount. The plea shall be decided strictly on merits in accordance with law. If the case is made out on merits the court may exercise its discretion and if no case is made out on merits the court shall reject the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be. However, in any circumstances the High Courts or trial courts shall not pass a conditional order of regular bail or anticipatory bail.Final VerdictThe appeal was dismissed and the cancellation of bail was upheld; the appellant was directed to surrender and a cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed for gross abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court further directed that henceforth no Trial Court or High Court shall grant regular or anticipatory bail on the basis of any undertaking to deposit money, and that such pleas must be decided strictly on merits, with the order circulated to all High Courts.Cases Referred / Relied UponKundan Singh v. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise — relied upon by the High Court; deprecates the practice of foreclosing consideration of a bail application on merits by voluntarily offering monetary deposits and thereafter reneging on it.Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi — cited for the proposition that a criminal court exercising bail jurisdiction is not expected to act as a recovery agent and that financial deposit as a condition for bail is impermissible.Apurva Kirti Mehta v. State of Maharashtra — cited along with Ramesh Kumar for the same proposition on impermissibility of financial deposit as a bail condition.Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee — cited for the proposition that non-fulfilment of the terms of a compromise cannot, by itself, be the basis of granting or cancelling bail.
