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.

BackgroundThe petitioner-assessee challenged an order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Respondent No. 4) before the Appellate Authority. In the appeal, the petitioner had filed detailed written submissions raising specific grounds including violation of principles of natural justice, timely filing of replies to both RFT-08 notices, request for personal hearing not granted by the adjudicating authority, breach of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and that belated generation of RFT-01 was due to administrative lapse and system auto-generation which should not have prejudiced the petitioner. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal solely on the ground that the petitioner did not personally appear before it despite being given an opportunity of hearing, without addressing any of the grounds raised in the appeal memo.Facts Relevant to Understanding the JudgmentThe petitioner had timely filed replies to both RFT-08 notices and had specifically requested personal hearing before the adjudicating authority, which was not granted. The adjudicating order was challenged before the Appellate Authority with specific written grounds. The Appellate Authority, instead of dealing with the merits of those grounds, dismissed the appeal only because the petitioner did not remain personally present on the date of hearing, despite the fact that detailed written submissions were already on record. The vires of Rule 96(5A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 were not challenged by the petitioner at this stage.Court Observations (Verbatim)"We have noticed that the petitioner-assessee as well as the respondent have committed irregularity before the Appellate Authority." (Para 3)"All these contentions raised by the petitioners have been ignored by the Appellate Authority by merely observing that since the petitioner / appellant was though afforded an opportunity of hearing to remain personally present, he did not remain present and hence the appeal was liable to be rejected and accordingly the appeal was disallowed." (Para 3.1)"We find that the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal has committed an illegality by not dealing with the submissions raised by the petitioner in his appeal memo for the reason that the petitioner did not remain present though he was granted the opportunity of hearing. It is always open for the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned order by dealing with the grounds raised in the appeal memo even if the party does not remain present." (Para 3.2)Final VerdictThe Appellate Order dated 24.09.2025 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was further clarified that even if the petitioner does not remain present on personal hearing, the Appellate Authority shall consider the grounds of appeal raised in the appeal memo and decide in accordance with law within 12 weeks.

Background.  The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and sale of safety valves and components and registered in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, amalgamated M/s Pentair Valves and Controls India Pvt. Ltd. into itself under an NCLT order dated 14.11.2019, the entire business including all assets and liabilities being transferred to it. The transferor’s unutilised credit pertained largely to CGST brought forward from the central excise regime through FORM GST TRAN-1. Attempts to file FORM GST ITC-02 were met with an endorsement made on the statutory form itself — that the transferee and transferor company should be of the same State or Union Territory — followed by reminders in 2022 and 2024 that produced no resolution.Observations of the Court.  The Court found that the incorporation had been made in the statutory form itself without reference to any provision under which it was passed. Reasons assigned by the department must be separate and must clearly demarcate its opinion, and must not be embossed on the statutory form. The endorsement had been placed below the transferee’s GSTIN and displayed on the portal, and in the absence of clear demarcation it was difficult to trace the opinion of the officer concerned. Form ITC-02, issued under Rule 41, contains no column for recording an officer’s opinion or reasons for not accepting the form.On merits the Court referred to the Bombay High Court’s decision in Umicore Autocat India (P) Ltd. on an identical issue, delivered after a threadbare analysis of Sections 18(3), 22 and 25 read with Rule 41, and found no convincing reason to take a contrary view. It noted the department’s submission that Umicore Autocat is under challenge before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) Diary No. 67126 of 2025, in which notice has been issued, and it recorded that the balance of credit had in fact been manually transferred into the petitioner’s books.Final verdict.  The writ petition was allowed and rule made absolute. The Court clarified that until a proper amendment or mechanism is provided for uploading FORM GST ITC-02, the department shall accept such forms manually and process them, and directed that the petitioner be allowed to fill up the form manually, the same to be processed within six weeks from receipt of the order.

BackgroundSurya Businees Private Limited, registered under CGST/AGST Act, 2017, had its returns for the period 2017-18 (July 2017 to March 2018) selected for audit under Section 65 of the AGST Act, 2017. A notice dated 27-09-2022 was issued requiring production of books of accounts. After audit, observations under Rule 101(4) of AGST Rules, 2017 were issued vide communication dated 29-05-2023, raising issues of short payment of tax, suppression of turnover and un-reconciled turnover. The petitioner replied on 07-06-2023 clarifying all observations. The audit report under Section 65(6) was thereafter issued. All objections on short payment of tax and suppression of turnover were dropped based on the petitioner's clarifications. Only interest of Rs. 1,34,580/- on account of late payment of tax was confirmed. The petitioner paid the said interest and intimated the authorities vide communication dated 19-06-2023, seeking closure of the matter. Despite this, the respondent No. 2 after approximately three months issued a fresh Show Cause Notice dated 28-09-2023 in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 73(1) of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 for the same period 2017-18, alleging short payment of GST of Rs. 64,25,694/- and wrongful availment of ITC of Rs. 1,68,052/- under Section 17(5). The petitioner challenged this SCN before the Gauhati High Court.Court Observations (Verbatim)"The impugned show-cause notice pertains to the same subject matter and the period for which a detailed audit under Section 65 of the Act of 2017, was already carried out by the authorities and wherein no discrepancy was found concerning any short payment of tax or wrongful availment of ITC.""The said exercise having been carried out by the respondent authorities and there being no allegation that the petitioner for the purpose had not furnished all the requisite documents/records, the issuance of the impugned notice, without a circumstance as envisaged under Sub-Section (7) of Section 65 arising in the matter, in the considered view of this Court undermines the audit process carried out and renders the same redundant.""The petitioner having discharged his liabilities as ascertained during the audit proceeding, the impugned show-cause notice for the same very purpose would not be maintainable.""The said factors basing on which a notice under Section 73 of the Act of 2017, is permissible to be so issued, not being found to have arisen in the case of the petitioner, herein, in the audit report submitted by the respondent authorities, the petitioner having discharged its liability as determined, the proceeding initiated under Section 73 of the Act of 2017 in the facts and circumstances arising in the present matter would not be sustainable.""The comprehensive audit for the period having been carried out and no discrepancy having been found, therein, issuance of show-cause notice under Section 73 of the Act of 2017, without the situation envisaged under Sub-Section (7) of Section 65 arising in the matter, in the considered view of this Court renders the impugned show-cause liable to be interfered with.""In the present case this Court having found both the issues involved in the impugned show-cause notice to have been duly considered during the process of audit assessment carried out under the provision of Section 65 of the Act of 2017, the circumstances as envisaged under Sub-Section (7) of Section 65 of the Act of 2017, not arising in the matter, the show-cause notice dated 28-09-2023, was not permissible to be so issued to the petitioner, herein."Final VerdictThe Show Cause Notice dated 28-09-2023 issued under Section 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, 2017 was quashed and set aside. The Writ Petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.Instructions / Circulars ReferredReferenceDetailsInstruction No. 13/2023-GST dated 26-12-2023Issued by Principal Commissioner of State Tax-cum-Commissioner of Taxes, Assam — stipulating that where audit proceedings have been completed, notices again issued using IIT Big Data Software need to be droppedKey Statutory Provisions InterpretedProvisionRelevanceSection 2(13) CGST/AGST Act, 2017Definition of 'Audit' — comprehensive verification of turnover, taxes, refunds and ITCSection 65(1) AGST Act, 2017Audit by tax authoritiesSection 65(6) AGST Act, 2017Issuance of final audit reportSection 65(7) AGST Act, 2017Trigger condition for initiating proceedings under Section 73/74 post-auditSection 73(1) CGST/AGST Act, 2017Determination of tax not paid / short paid — basis of impugned SCNRule 101(4) AGST Rules, 2017Audit observations issued to taxpayer

Case Facts:The petitioner challenged an order dated 26.12.2025 confirming tax liability for FY 2018–19. The show cause notice proposed a demand of Rs.1.37 crore, whereas the final order confirmed Rs.2.41 crore. The petitioner contended that the order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice. The writ petition was filed seeking quashing of both the show cause notice and consequential order. Court Decision:The Court held that the impugned order was contrary to Section 75(7) as it confirmed demand beyond what was proposed in the show cause notice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days and the authority was directed to pass a fresh order after granting opportunity. The authority was permitted to proceed in accordance with law in case of non-compliance by the petitioner.