Facts The petitioner, a logistics service provider registered under GST, challenged Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4), contending that they impose an impossible burden on recipients to ensure tax payment by suppliers. It was argued that denial of ITC due to supplier default is arbitrary and beyond the control of the recipient. The petitioner sought declaration of the provisions as unconstitutional or alternatively sought reading down to protect bona fide recipients who complied with statutory requirements. Court Decision:The High Court declined to strike down Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4). The Court held that the provisions cannot be declared unconstitutional. However, relying on precedents, the Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely due to default of the selling dealer, unless there is fraud, collusion, or lack of genuineness in the transaction. The matter was considered in light of judicial precedents emphasizing protection of genuine transactions and limiting denial of ITC only in appropriate cases. Cases Referred by Court:• Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India • Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala • Gheru Lal Bal Chand v. State of Haryana • State of Karnataka v. Rajesh Jain • Onyx Designs v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Instakart Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 09-02-2026
Facts The petitioner, a logistics service provider registered under GST, challenged Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4), contending that they impose an impossible burden on recipients to ensure tax payment by suppliers. It was argued that denial of ITC due to supplier default is arbitrary and beyond the control of the recipient. The petitioner sought declaration of the provisions as unconstitutional or alternatively sought reading down to protect bona fide recipients who complied with statutory requirements. Court Decision:The High Court declined to strike down Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4). The Court held that the provisions cannot be declared unconstitutional. However, relying on precedents, the Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely due to default of the selling dealer, unless there is fraud, collusion, or lack of genuineness in the transaction. The matter was considered in light of judicial precedents emphasizing protection of genuine transactions and limiting denial of ITC only in appropriate cases. Cases Referred by Court:• Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India • Corporation Bank v. Saraswati Abharansala • Gheru Lal Bal Chand v. State of Haryana • State of Karnataka v. Rajesh Jain • Onyx Designs v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Facts :The petitioner challenged the inability to file an appeal against assessment order dated 15.06.2023 due to delay. The order raised demand towards tax, interest and penalty for FY 2020–21. The petitioner contended that the order was only uploaded on the GST portal and not served physically, and due to closure of business, he did not access the portal. As a result, the petitioner remained unaware of the order and could not file appeal within limitation.Court Decision:The Court held that although the Appellate Authority is bound by limitation under Section 107, in the present case the delay occurred due to reasons beyond the petitioner’s control. It observed that non-consideration of appeal on merits would cause prejudice. Following earlier Division Bench decisions, the Court condoned the delay and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits.Cases Referred:M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors.Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Vikas Chachan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 05-02-2026
Facts :The petitioner challenged the inability to file an appeal against assessment order dated 15.06.2023 due to delay. The order raised demand towards tax, interest and penalty for FY 2020–21. The petitioner contended that the order was only uploaded on the GST portal and not served physically, and due to closure of business, he did not access the portal. As a result, the petitioner remained unaware of the order and could not file appeal within limitation.Court Decision:The Court held that although the Appellate Authority is bound by limitation under Section 107, in the present case the delay occurred due to reasons beyond the petitioner’s control. It observed that non-consideration of appeal on merits would cause prejudice. Following earlier Division Bench decisions, the Court condoned the delay and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits.Cases Referred:M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors.Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Facts :The petitioner alleged that GST officers illegally detained him from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 after calling him to the office of a Chartered Accountant in connection with investigation into fraudulent input tax credit by M/s Kabsan Services Pvt. Ltd. He contended that he was taken into custody without summons and that the formal arrest was shown only on 21.06.2025 under Section 69 of the CGST Act for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i). The petitioner sought compensation of ₹10,00,000 for alleged illegal detention. Court Decision:The Court held that the petitioner had been issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act for inquiry and recording of statement. The petitioner acknowledged the summons and appeared before the authorities from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 without raising any objection. The Court further held that Section 70 of the CGST Act does not require issuance of seven days’ prior notice before appearance for inquiry and that attendance pursuant to summons for investigation cannot be treated as detention.The Court observed that the petitioner was formally arrested on 21.06.2025 after ascertainment of his involvement and was produced before the Magistrate on the same day. Since the petitioner had voluntarily attended the inquiry and no illegal detention was established, the claim for compensation was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed. Cases Referred by Court:• Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.• D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal• Dikshant vs. State of Maharashtra• FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India• Ram Kotumal Issrani vs. Directorate of Enforcement• Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India
Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha vs. Union of India & Ors. 05-02-2026
Facts :The petitioner alleged that GST officers illegally detained him from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 after calling him to the office of a Chartered Accountant in connection with investigation into fraudulent input tax credit by M/s Kabsan Services Pvt. Ltd. He contended that he was taken into custody without summons and that the formal arrest was shown only on 21.06.2025 under Section 69 of the CGST Act for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i). The petitioner sought compensation of ₹10,00,000 for alleged illegal detention. Court Decision:The Court held that the petitioner had been issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act for inquiry and recording of statement. The petitioner acknowledged the summons and appeared before the authorities from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 without raising any objection. The Court further held that Section 70 of the CGST Act does not require issuance of seven days’ prior notice before appearance for inquiry and that attendance pursuant to summons for investigation cannot be treated as detention.The Court observed that the petitioner was formally arrested on 21.06.2025 after ascertainment of his involvement and was produced before the Magistrate on the same day. Since the petitioner had voluntarily attended the inquiry and no illegal detention was established, the claim for compensation was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed. Cases Referred by Court:• Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.• D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal• Dikshant vs. State of Maharashtra• FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India• Ram Kotumal Issrani vs. Directorate of Enforcement• Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India
Background & IssueThe petitioner, proprietor of M/s Shivani Overseas, challenged a summons dated 03.11.2025 issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 in connection with an inquiry relating to M/s Midas Marketing Inc. The summons directed the petitioner to appear and produce bank statements, sales invoices, and ledgers. The summons was issued by the Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer in reliance upon Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (now CBIC). The core legal issue before the Court was whether the said circular was validly issued — specifically, whether the Board (CBIC) had the authority to assign functions to "proper officers" under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, or whether such power vested exclusively in the "Commissioner in the Board" as defined under Section 2(25) read with Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that only the "Commissioner in the Board" — being a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board — could assign such functions, and that the circular issued in the name of the "Board" was therefore without legal authority, rendering the summons issued thereunder void.Court's DecisionThe Court, after examining the statutory framework, held that there was no ground to interfere with the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017. It observed that since the Commissioner is admittedly a constituent part of the Board, the assignment of functions through the circular must be presumed to have been initiated at the level of the Commissioner in the Board and duly approved by the Board, as contemplated under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority — he merely relied upon the language of the preamble of the circular using the word "Board," without pleading or proving through documents that the required procedure under Section 168(2) was not followed. Applying the well-settled principle of presumption of validity of subordinate legislation — as reaffirmed in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006) 4 SCC 517, G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6 — the Court held that the onus lay on the petitioner to prove invalidity, which he failed to discharge.Most Relevant Court Observation"In law, we have to presume that the circular is valid and the onus is on the petitioner to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority or legal approval." The Court further observed: "The fact remains that it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is also a part of the Board. Once it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is part of the Board, and sub-section (2) of Section 168 contemplates that the assignment of functions to the Central Tax Officers is upon a proposal of the Commissioner in the Board, we see no reason to disbelieve that the same was not under the authority of the Commissioner, which was approved by the Board as required under sub-section (2) of Section 168."Cases ReferredState of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 | G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014 | Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6
Lovelesh Singhal v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs & Ors. 02-02-2026
Background & IssueThe petitioner, proprietor of M/s Shivani Overseas, challenged a summons dated 03.11.2025 issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 in connection with an inquiry relating to M/s Midas Marketing Inc. The summons directed the petitioner to appear and produce bank statements, sales invoices, and ledgers. The summons was issued by the Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer in reliance upon Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (now CBIC). The core legal issue before the Court was whether the said circular was validly issued — specifically, whether the Board (CBIC) had the authority to assign functions to "proper officers" under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, or whether such power vested exclusively in the "Commissioner in the Board" as defined under Section 2(25) read with Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that only the "Commissioner in the Board" — being a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board — could assign such functions, and that the circular issued in the name of the "Board" was therefore without legal authority, rendering the summons issued thereunder void.Court's DecisionThe Court, after examining the statutory framework, held that there was no ground to interfere with the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017. It observed that since the Commissioner is admittedly a constituent part of the Board, the assignment of functions through the circular must be presumed to have been initiated at the level of the Commissioner in the Board and duly approved by the Board, as contemplated under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act. The Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority — he merely relied upon the language of the preamble of the circular using the word "Board," without pleading or proving through documents that the required procedure under Section 168(2) was not followed. Applying the well-settled principle of presumption of validity of subordinate legislation — as reaffirmed in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006) 4 SCC 517, G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6 — the Court held that the onus lay on the petitioner to prove invalidity, which he failed to discharge.Most Relevant Court Observation"In law, we have to presume that the circular is valid and the onus is on the petitioner to discharge the burden of establishing that the circular was issued without authority or legal approval." The Court further observed: "The fact remains that it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is also a part of the Board. Once it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is part of the Board, and sub-section (2) of Section 168 contemplates that the assignment of functions to the Central Tax Officers is upon a proposal of the Commissioner in the Board, we see no reason to disbelieve that the same was not under the authority of the Commissioner, which was approved by the Board as required under sub-section (2) of Section 168."Cases ReferredState of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 | G.M. (Operations) S.B.I. & Anr. v. R. Periyasamy, Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014 | Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6
Facts:Search and inspection proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 06.01.2021 under Section 67(2) of the RGST Act pursuant to authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner. Based on the search proceedings, a show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 was issued and an order dated 05.06.2023 was passed by the proper officer. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST Act, which was dismissed on 11.12.2023 by the Appellate Authority.Court Decision:The High Court held that the authorization for inspection and search under Section 67 of the RGST Act was issued by the same officer who later acted as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 while deciding the appeal arising out of those proceedings. The Court observed that such dual exercise of power violates the principle of natural justice that no person should be a judge in his own cause.Accordingly, the appellate order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 107 of the RGST Act was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction that the appeal be decided afresh by a competent appellate authority other than the officer who authorized the search proceedings.
Ramjilal Mohanlal vs. Union of India & Ors. 29-01-2026
Facts:Search and inspection proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 06.01.2021 under Section 67(2) of the RGST Act pursuant to authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner. Based on the search proceedings, a show cause notice dated 30.03.2023 was issued and an order dated 05.06.2023 was passed by the proper officer. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST Act, which was dismissed on 11.12.2023 by the Appellate Authority.Court Decision:The High Court held that the authorization for inspection and search under Section 67 of the RGST Act was issued by the same officer who later acted as the Appellate Authority under Section 107 while deciding the appeal arising out of those proceedings. The Court observed that such dual exercise of power violates the principle of natural justice that no person should be a judge in his own cause.Accordingly, the appellate order dated 11.12.2023 passed under Section 107 of the RGST Act was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a direction that the appeal be decided afresh by a competent appellate authority other than the officer who authorized the search proceedings.
Facts:The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 28.10.2022 after issuance of a show cause notice dated 12.10.2022 alleging that the registration had been obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice explaining the circumstances, including that the business had already been discontinued. Despite this, the authority cancelled the registration without addressing the reply or providing proper reasons.Court Decision:The High Court observed that the show cause notice was a cyclostyled notice without specific allegations and that there were serious discrepancies between the allegations in the show cause notice and the reasons recorded in the cancellation order. The authority had not considered the petitioner’s reply or provided any particulars of defects or objections.The Court held that the authority acted in a casual and mechanical manner without properly exercising jurisdiction under the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 cancelling the GST registration was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner’s GST registration was restored.
Om Enterprises vs. Union of India & Ors. 29-01-2026
Facts:The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 28.10.2022 after issuance of a show cause notice dated 12.10.2022 alleging that the registration had been obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice explaining the circumstances, including that the business had already been discontinued. Despite this, the authority cancelled the registration without addressing the reply or providing proper reasons.Court Decision:The High Court observed that the show cause notice was a cyclostyled notice without specific allegations and that there were serious discrepancies between the allegations in the show cause notice and the reasons recorded in the cancellation order. The authority had not considered the petitioner’s reply or provided any particulars of defects or objections.The Court held that the authority acted in a casual and mechanical manner without properly exercising jurisdiction under the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 cancelling the GST registration was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner’s GST registration was restored.
Facts:The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed under Section 107 of the GST Act on the ground of delay. Against the original order dated 12.08.2024, the petitioner had filed a rectification application under Section 161 on 05.11.2024 which was rejected on 19.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on 25.03.2025.Court Decision:The Court held that the rectification application filed under Section 161 and its disposal is a relevant factor for computing the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107. The limitation would start from the date of rejection of the rectification application.Since the rectification application was rejected on 19.03.2025 and the appeal was filed on 25.03.2025, the appeal was within time. The appellate authority failed to consider this aspect and erroneously rejected the appeal as time-barred. The Court therefore quashed the appellate order dated 25.04.2025 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh after granting opportunity of hearing.Cases Referred by Court:· M/s SPK and Co. v. State Tax Officer, W.P.(MD) No.27787 of 2024, Madras High Court, Order dated 22.11.2024
New Kailash Suppliers vs State of Gujarat & Ors. 29-01-2026
Facts:The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed under Section 107 of the GST Act on the ground of delay. Against the original order dated 12.08.2024, the petitioner had filed a rectification application under Section 161 on 05.11.2024 which was rejected on 19.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on 25.03.2025.Court Decision:The Court held that the rectification application filed under Section 161 and its disposal is a relevant factor for computing the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107. The limitation would start from the date of rejection of the rectification application.Since the rectification application was rejected on 19.03.2025 and the appeal was filed on 25.03.2025, the appeal was within time. The appellate authority failed to consider this aspect and erroneously rejected the appeal as time-barred. The Court therefore quashed the appellate order dated 25.04.2025 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh after granting opportunity of hearing.Cases Referred by Court:· M/s SPK and Co. v. State Tax Officer, W.P.(MD) No.27787 of 2024, Madras High Court, Order dated 22.11.2024
Facts:The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 12.06.2024 proposing levy of tax and penalty for the tax periods 2018-19 to 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the notice before the High Court contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued covering multiple assessment periods or financial years.Court Decision:The High Court held that assessment proceedings for each taxation period or financial year must be initiated through separate show cause notices. Since the impugned notice covered multiple taxation periods in a single show cause notice, the Court set aside the notice following the earlier judgment of the same Court. The writ petition was allowed with liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:• S.J Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Uber India Systems Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors. 28-01-2026
Facts:The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 12.06.2024 proposing levy of tax and penalty for the tax periods 2018-19 to 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the notice before the High Court contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued covering multiple assessment periods or financial years.Court Decision:The High Court held that assessment proceedings for each taxation period or financial year must be initiated through separate show cause notices. Since the impugned notice covered multiple taxation periods in a single show cause notice, the Court set aside the notice following the earlier judgment of the same Court. The writ petition was allowed with liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:• S.J Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 11 February 2025 passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with the show cause notice dated 13 November 2024, were quashed and set aside.The Court held that Section 75(7) of the Act, 2017 mandates that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice and no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in the notice.In the present case, the show cause notice did not quantify any interest for the period April 2020 to March 2021, though interest was later imposed in the adjudication order. The Court held that failure to quantify interest in the show cause notice, despite the relevant period being known to the authorities, was in contravention of Section 75(7).The contention of the GST authorities relying on Section 75(9), that interest is payable whether or not specified in the order, was rejected. The Court held that Section 75(9) applies to non-specification of interest in the order determining tax liability, and not to non-quantification in the show cause notice.Liberty was granted to the authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law and proceed afresh.Cases Referred by Court:M/s Vrinda Automation vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Writ Tax No. 2006 of 2025, decided on 14 May 2025
Ziva Auto Sales Thru. Prop. Akhand Pratap and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. State Tax Lko. and Another 28-01-2026
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 11 February 2025 passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with the show cause notice dated 13 November 2024, were quashed and set aside.The Court held that Section 75(7) of the Act, 2017 mandates that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice and no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in the notice.In the present case, the show cause notice did not quantify any interest for the period April 2020 to March 2021, though interest was later imposed in the adjudication order. The Court held that failure to quantify interest in the show cause notice, despite the relevant period being known to the authorities, was in contravention of Section 75(7).The contention of the GST authorities relying on Section 75(9), that interest is payable whether or not specified in the order, was rejected. The Court held that Section 75(9) applies to non-specification of interest in the order determining tax liability, and not to non-quantification in the show cause notice.Liberty was granted to the authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law and proceed afresh.Cases Referred by Court:M/s Vrinda Automation vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Writ Tax No. 2006 of 2025, decided on 14 May 2025
Facts:Search and investigation proceedings were conducted by different GST authorities against the petitioners relating to alleged tax evasion in the manufacture and sale of scented tobacco and pan masala products. Subsequently, composite show cause notices dated 30.09.2025 and 04.10.2025 were issued under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Acts covering multiple financial years and involving more than one noticee. The petitioners challenged the notices contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued for multiple financial years or for multiple noticees and that the proceedings were also barred under Section 6(2)(b) due to parallel action by different authorities.Court Decision:The High Court examined the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, including the definitions of “tax period”, provisions relating to filing of returns, and the adjudication mechanism under Sections 73 and 74. The Court noted that the limitation for adjudication orders under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) is linked to the due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year.Considering the divergent views expressed by different High Courts on the issue of composite show cause notices for multiple financial years, the Court held that the challenge raised in the batch of petitions required detailed examination of statutory provisions and precedents. The matters were therefore considered together, and the Court addressed the legal questions regarding the permissibility of composite show cause notices, applicability of Section 6(2)(b), and jurisdiction of different authorities.Cases Referred by Court:State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd.Dhananjaya Reddy vs. State of KarnatakaCIT vs. Anjum M.H. GhaswalaMehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. State of GujaratMaharao Bheem Singh of Kota vs. CITState of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.State of U.P. vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.B. Prabhakar Rao vs. State of Andhra PradeshPramur Homes and Shelters vs. Union of IndiaMathur Polymers vs. Union of IndiaMilroc Good Earth Developers vs. Union of IndiaTitan Company Ltd. vs. Joint CommissionerR.A. & Co. vs. Additional Commissioner of Central TaxesTharayil Medicals vs. Deputy CommissionerState of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Caltex (India) Ltd.G.K. Trading Company vs. Union of IndiaArmour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGSTSangeeta Singh vs. Union of IndiaPalm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Magar Girme and Gaikwad AssociatesGrasim Industries Ltd. vs. Collector of CustomsR.K. Ispat Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaX.L. Interiors vs. Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence)Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaDelhi Foils vs. Additional CommissionerRiocare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST
S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. 20-01-2026
Facts:Search and investigation proceedings were conducted by different GST authorities against the petitioners relating to alleged tax evasion in the manufacture and sale of scented tobacco and pan masala products. Subsequently, composite show cause notices dated 30.09.2025 and 04.10.2025 were issued under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Acts covering multiple financial years and involving more than one noticee. The petitioners challenged the notices contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued for multiple financial years or for multiple noticees and that the proceedings were also barred under Section 6(2)(b) due to parallel action by different authorities.Court Decision:The High Court examined the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, including the definitions of “tax period”, provisions relating to filing of returns, and the adjudication mechanism under Sections 73 and 74. The Court noted that the limitation for adjudication orders under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) is linked to the due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year.Considering the divergent views expressed by different High Courts on the issue of composite show cause notices for multiple financial years, the Court held that the challenge raised in the batch of petitions required detailed examination of statutory provisions and precedents. The matters were therefore considered together, and the Court addressed the legal questions regarding the permissibility of composite show cause notices, applicability of Section 6(2)(b), and jurisdiction of different authorities.Cases Referred by Court:State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd.Dhananjaya Reddy vs. State of KarnatakaCIT vs. Anjum M.H. GhaswalaMehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. State of GujaratMaharao Bheem Singh of Kota vs. CITState of Gujarat vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.State of U.P. vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.B. Prabhakar Rao vs. State of Andhra PradeshPramur Homes and Shelters vs. Union of IndiaMathur Polymers vs. Union of IndiaMilroc Good Earth Developers vs. Union of IndiaTitan Company Ltd. vs. Joint CommissionerR.A. & Co. vs. Additional Commissioner of Central TaxesTharayil Medicals vs. Deputy CommissionerState of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Caltex (India) Ltd.G.K. Trading Company vs. Union of IndiaArmour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGSTSangeeta Singh vs. Union of IndiaPalm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Magar Girme and Gaikwad AssociatesGrasim Industries Ltd. vs. Collector of CustomsR.K. Ispat Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaX.L. Interiors vs. Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence)Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaDelhi Foils vs. Additional CommissionerRiocare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST
