GST and Tax update

GST CASE LAWS 10.08.2026

CA Satbir Singh — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 11:07:02 +0000

GST CASE LAWS 10.08.2026

Section	Case Law Title	Brief Summary	Citation	Relevant Act
Section 6	Vardhman Ispat Udhyog v. Adjudicating Authority cum Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division Dharamshala	Where multiple authorities initiate proceedings on alleged fake ITC for the same subject matter, the authority issuing the initial show cause notice takes precedence to ensure single-stream adjudication without parallel inquiries.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Surendera Dental College and Research Institute v. Rajasthan University of Health Science	Demand of GST on affiliation fees paid by a college to a University was set aside, as the issue stands settled that GST cannot be imposed on affiliation fees.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 9	Er. Roland S. Fernandes v. Government of Karnataka	A works contractor who incurred additional GST liability on a pre-GST State contract is legally entitled to reimbursement of the tax differential from the State as the recipient of service.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 11B	Asish Kumar Pati v. Kairav Chemofarbe Industries Ltd.	Where a refund order under Section 142(3) read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is passed, appeal lies before CESTAT and not GSTAT, making revenue’s appeal before GSTAT non-maintainable.	Click Here	Central Excise Act, 1944
Rule 18(1)	Sampark Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax	Passing an ex parte order without issuing a fresh statutory notice or listing via judicial order violates Rule 18; weekly cause lists cannot substitute statutory notice requirements.	Click Here	Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982
Section 29	Rajat Bansal v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST)	Retrospective cancellation of registration without recording reasons for such retrospectivity in the SCN or order is unsustainable and requires a fresh, reasoned determination.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 35L	Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Delhi East v. Samiah International Builder (P.) Ltd.	Appeals regarding the taxability of a service determined by CESTAT lie before the Supreme Court under Section 35L, making an appeal before the High Court non-maintainable under Section 35G.	Click Here	Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 54	J K Cement Works v. Commissioner CGST	Withholding release of a granted refund merely due to an unlisted departmental appeal filed belatedly is unjustified; release was directed subject to an undertaking to redeposit if revenue succeeds.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 74A	Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Baskar Selvakumar	Issuing an SCN under Section 74 for FY 2024-25 instead of newly introduced Section 74A is merely a citation of a wrong provision and not a lack of jurisdiction; proceedings must continue under Section 74A.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 75	Aarya Metals v. State of Gujarat	Issuing a cryptic, unreasoned two-line order for ITC recovery without addressing detailed replies or affording an opportunity for personal hearing violates principles of natural justice and is unsustainable.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 75	Aarya Metals v. State of Gujarat	Failure to intimate the date, time, or venue for a personal hearing before passing an adverse recovery order constitutes a breach of statutory natural justice requirements, vitiating the order.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 129	Ratul Talukdar v. Union of India	Where ownership of seized perishable goods is unestablished, the claimant cannot seek release as an owner, but compelling participation in an auction is unsustainable; release must be pursued via alternate statutory provisions.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 169	Gugal Electrical and Engg. Works v. State of Punjab	Mere portal upload of SCN and Order-in-Original without acknowledgment does not constitute valid service under Section 169 read with Section 146 and does not trigger the limitation period for appeals.	Click Here	Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Mere Uploading of SCN on GST Common Portal Without Acknowledgment Does Not Constitute Valid Service

Ashwani Kumar — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 11:06:00 +0000

Mere Uploading of SCN on GST Common Portal Without Acknowledgment Does Not Constitute Valid Service

Issue

Whether merely uploading a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and Order-in-Original on the GST common portal, without explicit acknowledgment or reply from the taxpayer, constitutes proper service under Section 169 read with Section 146 of the CGST/PGST/HGST Act, 2017.

Facts

Service via Portal Only: The GST SCN and subsequent Order-in-Original were served on the petitioner solely by uploading them on the GST common portal.
Ex Parte Order & Appeal Dismissal: Due to lack of actual notice, the petitioner did not submit a reply, leading to an ex parte order; subsequent appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed as time-barred.
Revenue’s Defense: The Revenue relied on the retrospective portal amendment brought under Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022 (amending Notification GSR 58(E) under Section 146) to justify the validity of portal-only service.
Writ Petition: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the service and the resulting ex parte proceedings.
Settled Precedent: The matter was covered by the decisions in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana.

Decision

Invalidity of Portal-Only Service: Merely uploading notices on the common portal does not amount to valid service under Section 169 in the absence of an acknowledgment or reply from the taxpayer.
Retrospective Amendment Ineffective: The retrospective amendment to Section 146 did not validate portal-only service because the underlying statutory Rules did not permit such mode of service to override natural justice.
Limitation Trigger Negated: Portal-only upload does not trigger the running of the limitation period for filing appeals; consequently, appeals dismissed on grounds of limitation stand restored.
Restoration to SCN Stage: The ex parte orders were set aside, and the proceedings were restored to the SCN stage, granting the petitioner liberty to file a detailed reply.

Key Takeaways

Actual Knowledge Required: Service of notice under GST laws requires effective delivery; mere passive portal upload without proof of receipt or reply fails the test of valid service under Section 169.
Protection Against Time-Barred Appeal Dismissals: An appeal cannot be dismissed as time-barred if the initial SCN or order was never validly served through an recognized mode.
Preservation of Natural Justice: Legislative amendments expanding portal functionalities cannot dispense with the fundamental requirement of providing an effective opportunity of hearing.

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

Gugal Electrical and Engg. Works

State of Punjab

Ashwani kumar Mishra, Actg. CJ.
and Rohit Kapoor, J.

CWP No. 21363 of 2025 (O & M)

JULY 27, 2026

Chetan Jain, Adv. for the Petitioner. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG and Prashant Rana, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Actg. CJ.- Short question that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether uploading of a notice as well as the order-in-original in the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’, on the common portal, being www.gst.gov.in amounts to proper service of it, on the petitioner in view of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017?

2. The issue raised in the present case is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (Punjab & Haryana). The said judgment has been further clarified by this Court in CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana), decided on 23.07.2026.

3. This Court in paragraphs No.58, 59 & 60 of Luxmi Traders (supra), has observed as under:-

“58. With reference to the above provision, it is submitted on behalf of the revenue that service of notice by uploading it on the Common Portal cannot be discarded where the person concerned has knowledge of it and has contested the proceedings by filing reply etc. In such cases, the SCN cannot be said to have not been served upon the assessee.

59. The contention advanced on behalf of the revenue, in this regard, merits consideration. In cases where the SCN has been responded to by the person concerned, and after contest, the order-in-original is passed by the competent authority, the orderin-original cannot be challenged merely due to defect in service of SCN/order on the taxpayer by uploading it on the Common Portal.

60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:-

(i)

Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.

(ii)

Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing.

(iii)

In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeks f rom today.

(iv)

Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits.

(v)

In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.”

4. Learned counsel for the revenue, however, submits that while deciding Luxmi Traders (supra), this Court was not apprised of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, whereby Section 115 was introduced which provides as under:-

“115. (1) The notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number G.S.R 58(E), dated the 23^rd January, 2018, issued by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Council, under Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended retrospectively in the manner specified in column (2) of the Fifth Schedule, on and from the date specified in column (3) of that Schedule.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the Central Government shall have and shall be deemed to have the power to amend the notification referred to in the said sub-section with retrospective effect as if the Central Government had the power to amend the said notification under section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, retrospectively, at all material times.”

5. The Schedule referred to in Section 115 reads as under:-

“THE FIFTH SCHEDULE

(See sectin 115(1))

Notification number and date	Amendment	Date of effect of amendment
(1)	(2)	(3)
G.S.R. 58(E), dated the 23^rd January, 2018 (No.349/58/201 7-GST (Pt), dated 23^rd January, 2018	In the said notification, in paragraph 1, for the words “furnishing of returns and computation and settlement of integrated tax”, the following shall be substituted namely:-“furnishing of returns and computation and settlement of integrated tax and save as otherwise provided in the notification number G.S.R. 925(E), dated the 13^th December, 2019, all functions provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.	22^nd June, 2017

6. The view taken by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra) was further clarified in The Amar Coop LC Society Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held as under:-

“6. With reference to the aforesaid amendment, learned counsel for the revenue submits that the notification issued on 23.01.2018 stood amended retrospectively in the manner specified in Column (2) of the Fifth Schedule, whereby all functions provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, the ‘Rules of 2017’), could also be performed on the Common Portal, i.e., www.gst.gov.in.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposes the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revenue on the ground that the Rules of 2017 nowhere permit the uploading of the SCN/Order on the Common Portal, i.e., www.gst.gov.in. Rule 142 of the Rules of 2017 is the only provision that could be pressed into service, whereunder the orders, etc., are required to be communicated electronically. It is also pointed out that this Court, in Luxmi Traders (supra), has taken note of this aspect and thereafter observed that the orders cannot be treated as having been communicated electronically, since the e-mail does not contain the SCN/order itself.

8. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further submitted that the notification issued by the Government specifically identifies the Common Portal in terms of Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and unless the Common Portal is expressly specified by way ofa notification for effecting service of the SCN/order, the expression “uploading” occurring in Rule 145(5) of the Rules of 2017 would not, ipso facto, legitimize the service of the SCN/order upon an assessee.

9. It is also pointed out that expression ‘Common Portal’ has been used several times for different purposes in the Rules of 2017, which are as follows:-

Registration:- 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 10A, 12, 14, 14A, 17, 19, 20, 21A, 23, 24, 83B

Returns/Registers:-59, 60, 61, 61A, 62, 63, 65, 80, 81, 85, 86, 88C, 88D, 117,120A, 140

Payment:- 87, 142(2), 142(2B)

Assessment:- 98

Refund:- 89, 90, 95, 95B, 96

Advance Ruling:- 104

Appeal:- 108, 110, 111

Recovery:- 142B

E-way bill:- 138, 138A, 138D,

E-invoicing:- 48

10. None of the provisions of the Rules of 2017 refers to Common Portal for the purpose of service of SCN/order. As indicated above, the Rules explicitly confine the utility of the Common Portal to limited functions, such as registration, filing of returns, payment of tax etc., rather than expanding its scope to substitute formal service of SCN/order.

11. We find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Even otherwise, we have already observed in Luxmi Traders (supra) that the complex process by which the order is sought to be served upon the petitioner/assessee cannot receive the approval of law, particularly when it leads to serious civil consequences for the assessee. We are, therefore, not persuaded to take a view different from the one expressed in Luxmi Traders (supra) merely on account of the reference to the provisions of the Act of 2022, noticed above.

12. In the present case as well, the order was uploaded only on the Common Portal, and the petitioner has specifically stated that being an illiterate person, he had no knowledge thereof.

13. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in terms of Luxmi Traders (supra).

14. However, in the event, the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the amount towards the statutory pre-deposit at the time of filing the appeal, the appeal itself shall be heard and decided on merits. Any recovery effected from the petitioner shall abide by the final adjudication of the matter in the competent proceedings. Any attachment of petitioner’s bank account, pursuant to the order under challenge, shall stand revoked.”

7. As the issue raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Luxmi Traders (supra) and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. (supra), the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.

8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Non-Owner Cannot Seek Release of Detained Perishable Goods as Owner but Can Seek Alternate Statutory Release

Ashwani Kumar — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 11:01:13 +0000

Non-Owner Cannot Seek Release of Detained Perishable Goods as Owner but Can Seek Alternate Statutory Release

Non-Owner Cannot Seek Release of Detained Perishable Goods as Owner but Can Seek Alternate Statutory Release

Issue

Whether an appellant whose claim of ownership over detained perishable goods was disowned and rejected by tax authorities can claim release of goods under Section 129 as an “owner,” or whether they must seek release through alternate statutory provisions applicable to non-owners.

Facts

Detention and Seizure: Perishable goods and conveyance in transit were detained and seized by the CGST authority.
Ownership Claimed: The appellant claimed ownership of the detained goods as the consignor through a proprietorship firm and sought their release under Section 129.
Finding on Ownership: The adjudicating authority recorded a finding that the appellant was not the true owner of the goods and that the real owner could not be traced.
No Appeal Filed: The appellant did not file any appeal against the adjudicating authority’s finding on ownership within the period of limitation.
Department’s Evidence: Before the appellate court, the Department produced records, including a letter from the alleged consignor disowning the registration (which the appellant claimed was obtained under coercion).
Single Judge Directions: The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with directions involving auction participation and release of the vehicle to its registered owner.

Decision

Release as Owner Denied: Held that in the absence of established ownership, the appellant was not entitled to seek the release of the detained goods in the capacity of an owner.
Alternate Statutory Mode Available: Given that the goods were perishable, a non-owner is entitled to seek release under alternate statutory provisions (such as Rule 144A) rather than being forced into an auction.
Directions Modified: The direction compelling the appellant to participate in an auction was held to be erroneous and set aside, while the direction to release the vehicle to its registered owner was sustained.
Remedial Path: The appellant was granted liberty to approach the adjudicating authority for the release of the perishable goods under the applicable alternate statutory conditions for non-owners.

Key Takeaways

Ownership Pre-requisite Under Section 129: To claim release of goods under the primary provisions of Section 129 as an owner, the claimant’s legal ownership must be established and undisputed.
Protection for Perishable Goods: Even if ownership is disowned or unestablished, perishable goods are protected under alternate statutory modes (e.g., Rule 144A) to prevent waste and economic loss.
Invalidity of Compulsory Auction Participation: Tax authorities cannot arbitrarily compel a non-owner claimant to participate in an auction when statutory provisions permit release under alternative conditions.

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Ratul Talukdar

Union of India

Shampa Sarkar and Smita Das De, JJ.

MAT No. 31 of 2026
CAN No. 1 of 2026

JULY 24, 2026

Mainak Bose, Ld. Sr. Adv., Shakeel Mahammad Akhter and Bikash Singha for the Appellant. Ratan Banik and Bishwa Raj Agarwal for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. Affidavit-in-reply is taken on record.

2. This is an intra-court appeal.

3. Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate appears on behalf of the appellant and submits that the order impugned suffers from various irregularities.

4. Firstly, the learned Judge did not consider that, under Section 17 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short “IGST Act, 2017), in respect of inter-State supply of goods, the intermediary State, that is, the State of West Bengal did not have any authority to detain and seize the goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act.

5. The learned Single Judge erroneously directed the CGST authorities to auction the goods that were seized and committed further illegality by directing the appellant, who claims to be the owner of the goods, to participate in such auction.

6. The CGST authorities for the first time came up with the documents, which indicated that the appellant had admitted before the Anti-Evasion Section of the authority during an investigation that, he was not the consignor and he was a painter by profession.

7. The manufactured and concocted story of the CGST authorities was based on the appellant’s letter, which was obtained by coercion. Thus, the tax invoice should be given prime consideration with regard to deemed ownership of Ratul, as the proprietor of Talukdar Enterprise and the consignor. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Bose on various decisions of the High Court in this regard.

8. Mr. Banik, learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the CGST authorities had the right to detain and seize the goods in terms of Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017.

9. It is submitted that the authority had the right to investigate. Two days after the seizure, i.e., on 4^th July, 2025, Ratul had made a statement before the authority.

10. Under such circumstances, the authority was right in holding that Ratul could not be the consignor. Further contention is that, Ratul never retracted from his statement. It is also submitted that the signature of Ratul in the documents and power of attorney, which were relied upon in the writ petition did not tally with the signature of Ratul in the letter written to the Superintendent, Headquarters, Anti-Evasion.

11. Heard the parties. With regard to the documents which were filed for the first time before us by the respondents, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without calling for any affidavits, and as such, the authorities did not get a chance to bring those documents on record. There is no reason to doubt the same at this stage.

12. Secondly, with regard to Mr. Bose’s contention that Ratul has filed an affidavit-in-reply, inter alia, stating that he was coerced into submitting the said letter to the authority, the same is a matter of evidence, which we are not inclined to go into. The records indicate that Ratul Talukdar had written to the authority and the letter is set out below:-

“To,

The Superintendent,

Hqrs. Anti-Evasion,

CGST Guwahati Commissionerate

Subject: Fraudulent use of my credentials to obtain GSTIN- 18AWEPT2079E1ZB-reg

Sir,

As it has come to my knowledge that a firm named M/s Talukdar Enterprises has been registered with the GST Department in my name using my PAN (AWEPT2079E), AADHAAR (718733679795) and electricity bill.

I wish to hereby declare that I have no connection to such a firm and I have never obtained any GST registration for such firm, nor have I ever submitted my PAN, AADAHAAR or other documents with any intent to obtain GST registration.

I am a painter by profession and my address is a residential premises and has never been used for any business activity. I don’t have any idea of GST invoices, E-way bills or return filing. My family stays at my residential premises and I don’t have any business activities undertaken at my residential premises as declared as Principal Place of Business in the GST Registration of M/s Talukdar Enterprises.

It appears that some fraudulent individuals have obtained my documents and misused the same to obtain a fake GST registration. I request your kind self to cancel this registration at the earliest. I extend my full cooperation towards any investigation in this regard.

This submission has been typed by the officers of Hqrs Anti-Evasion on my request and the same has been explained to me in the language best known to me. I am satisfied that the contents of this letter have been translated in Assamese and have been subscribed verbatim what I have stated in Assamese.

Yours Sincerely,

(Ratul Talukdar)

13. There is a specific finding by the adjudicating authority that, Ratul was not the owner and the owner could not be traced.

14. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to hold that the appellant is entitled to release of goods under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. As the goods are perishable in nature, a non-owner is entitled to seek release in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act.

15. We hold that the learned Judge erred in directing the authority to auction the goods and in further directing the appellant to participate in such auction process.

16. We also do not find that any finding with regard to the jurisdiction of the CGST authority to detain and seize the goods, has been returned by the learned single Judge. No appeal was filed by the appellant within the prescribed time limit, challenging the order of the adjudicating authority. Instead, the appellant preferred a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the CGST authorities.

17. With regard to the release of vehicle in favour of the registered owner, the direction of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 20 of the order impugned, is upheld.

18. Under such circumstances, apart from paragraph 20, the rest of the order impugned is set aside.

19. The appellant may approach the authority for release of goods under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. The condition of release will be subject to the final decision in the writ petition.

20. The other contentions of Mr. Bose and Mr. Banik on the jurisdiction of the CGST authorities to detain and seize the goods, will be decided in the writ petition, upon exchange of affidavits. The writ petition will be heard afresh.

21. Affidavit-in-opposition to be filed within four weeks from date.

22. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

23. Liberty to mention.

24. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of.

25. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

26. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.

Non-Speaking Order Passed Without Personal Hearing Violates Principles of Natural Justice and Is Unsustainable

Ashwani Kumar — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:57:40 +0000

Non-Speaking Order Passed Without Personal Hearing Violates Principles of Natural Justice and Is Unsustainable

Issue

Whether a cryptic, two-line assessment order passed in FORM GST DRC-07 without considering the assessee’s reply, providing reasons, or offering a personal hearing under Section 75 of the CGST/GGST Act, 2017 is legally sustainable.

Facts

Show Cause Notice: SCNs were issued to the petitioners proposing the recovery of Input Tax Credit (ITC) along with interest and penalty, alleging non-genuine inward supplies.
Omission of Hearing Details: Neither the original SCNs nor the subsequent three reminders contained any particulars regarding the date, time, or venue for a personal hearing.
Assessee’s Submission: The petitioners submitted detailed replies in FORM GST DRC-06 along with supporting invoices and documentation (though selecting “No” for personal hearing due to the absence of hearing particulars in the notice).
Unreasoned Order Issued: The respondent passed a two-line summary order in FORM GST DRC-07 directing the recovery of ITC, interest, and penalty without providing reasons or addressing the submitted documents.
Writ Petition: The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order on the grounds of non-consideration of their reply, lack of reasons, and denial of statutory personal hearing.

Decision

Violation of Natural Justice: The High Court held that passing a non-speaking order without analyzing the assessee’s reply or supporting documents violates the statutory requirement of a reasoned adjudication under Section 75.
Mandatory Personal Hearing: The absence of specific intimation for a personal hearing failed to meet the statutory mandate to grant an opportunity of hearing prior to passing an adverse order, breaching the expectation of granting up to three hearing opportunities.
Order Quashed and Remanded: The Court quashed the impugned order in FORM GST DRC-07 and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of personal hearing.

Key Takeaways

Reasoned Order Mandatory: Tax authorities are legally bound to pass speaking orders that explicitly analyze the assessee’s written submissions and documents before confirming a demand.
Personal Hearing Is a Statutory Right: An opportunity for personal hearing must be explicitly provided with a clear date, time, and venue before passing any adverse decision, regardless of procedural checkboxes in SCN responses.
Remand for Procedural Cure: Orders passed in breach of natural justice or Section 75 mandates are liable to be set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication with due compliance.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Aarya Metals

State of Gujarat

A.S. Supehia and Ms. VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, JJ.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7535 of 2026

JULY 28, 2026

Abhay Y. Desai for the Petitioner. Ms. Nimisha Parekh, AGP for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Supehia, J.- Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Abhay Y. Desai, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Aarti Enterprise v. State of Gujarat [2026] 107 GSTL 251/39 Centax 31 (Guj).

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nimisha Parekh, was unable to controvert the aforesaid proposition.

4. A short issue involved in the present writ petition pertains to the absence of intimation regarding the date, time and venue of personal hearing in the show-cause notices issued to the petitioners, which ultimately culminated in the impugned order.

5. The respondent-Commissioner issued a show-cause notice dated 04.08.2024 under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the CGST Act”), seeking to recover Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs.7,63,026/- along with applicable interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act. It was alleged that the inward supplies received from M/s. RK Battery and Scrap were non-genuine, as the supplier was found to be a non-genuine and non-existent taxpayer. Consequently, the ITC was alleged to be inadmissible under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that they were never aware of the aforesaid show-cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued three reminders dated 12.09.2024, 07.11.2024, and 18.11.2024. The petitioners submitted a reply dated 21.11.2024 along with the tax invoices issued by the supplier. However, the respondent authorities proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 07.12.2024 in FORM GST DRC-07.

7. It is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside since neither the show-cause notice nor the subsequent reminders specified the date, time, or venue of personal hearing. It is further submitted that the reminders also reflected “N.A.” against the particulars of the date, time, and venue of personal hearing, thereby depriving the petitioners of an effective opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking, one-line order and is liable to be quashed in light of the decision of this Court in the case of Aarti Enterprise (supra).

8. Opposing the writ petition, learned AGP Ms. Nimisha Parekh has submitted that the petitioners were issued three reminders. She has further submitted that although the petitioners had responded to the proceedings, they had selected “No” in the column relating to personal hearing and they were fully aware of the proceedings. Hence, she has submitted that the writ petition does not deserve to be entertained.

9. From the pleadings on record, the following facts emerge:

The petitioners were initially issued a show-cause notice dated 04.08.2024 under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act seeking recovery of ITC amounting to Rs.7,63,026/-.

The show-cause notice did not specify the date, time, or venue of personal hearing.

The respondent authorities thereafter issued three reminders dated 12.09.2024, 07.11.2024, and 18.11.2024, which also failed to specify the date, time, or venue of personal hearing.

10. It appears that the petitioners thereafter filed a reply in FORM GST DRC-06 on 21.11.2024, wherein they had selected “No” against the column relating to personal hearing. Thereafter, the respondent authorities passed the two line impugned order directing recovery of the aforesaid amount along with interest and penalty.

11. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Aarti Enterprise (supra), wherein, on an identical issue, this Court has held as under:

“5.1 Thereafter, the petitioner has been issued reminders on 31.12.2024, 08.01.2025 and 17.01.2025, three reminders as required under the provisions of Section 75(5) of the G.S.T Act. On a bare perusal of the same, it is revealed that the petitioner is not intimated of either the date, time or venue of personal hearing and thereafter the impugned order is passed by recording that though an ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner to remain present, he has not remained present. This is the only reason which is assigned in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that three opportunities are required to be given and as per provisions of section 75(5) of the G.S.T Act, three adjournments are required to be given. Section 75 of the G.S.T Act reads as under:

“Section 75. General provisions relating to determination of tax.-

(1) Where the service of notice or issuance of order is stayed by an order of a court or Appellate Tribunal, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the period specified in sub-sections (2) and (10) of section 73 or sub-sections (2) and (10) of section 74 [or sub-sections (2) and (7) of section 74A], as the case may be.

(2) Where any Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal or court concludes that the notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 74 is not sustainable for the reason that the charges of fraud or any wilful-misstatement suppression of facts to evade tax has not been established against the person to whom the notice was issued, the proper officer shall determine the tax payable by such person, deeming as if the notice were issued under sub-section (1) of section 73.

[(2A) Where any Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal or court concludes that the penalty under clause (ii) of subsection (5) of section 74A is not sustainable for the reason that the charges of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax has not been established against the person to whom the notice was issued, the penalty shall be payable by such person. under clause (1) of subsection (5) of section 74A].

(3) Where any order is required to be issued in pursuant of the direction of the Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal or a court, such order shall be issued within two years from the date of communication of the said direction.

(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.

(5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings.

(6) The proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision.

(7) The amount of tax, Interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice and no demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice.

(8) Where the Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal or court modifies the amount of tax determined by the proper officer, the amount of interest and penalty shall stand modified accordingly, taking into account the amount of tax so modified.

(9) The interest on the tax short paid or not paid shall be payable whether or not specified in the order determining the tax liability.

[(10) The adjudication proceedings shall be deemed to be concluded, if the order is not issued within the period specified in sub-section (10) of section 73 or in sub-section (10) of section 74 or in sub-section (7) of section 74A.

(11) An issue on which the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court has given its decision which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in some other proceedings and an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court against such decision of the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court is pending, the period spent between the date of the decision of the Appellate Authority and that of the Appellate Tribunal or the date of decision of the Appellate Tribunal and that of the High Court or the date of the decision of the High Court and that of the Supreme Court shall be excluded in computing the period referred to in subsection (10) of section 73 or sub-section (10) of section 74 [or sub-sections (2) and (7) of section 74A] where proceedings are initiated by way of issue of a show cause notice under the said sections.

(12) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 73 or section 74 [or section 74A], where any amount of self assessed tax in accordance with a return furnished under section 39 remains unpaid. either wholly or partly, or any amount of interest payable on such tax remains unpaid the same shall be recovered under the provisions of section 79 [Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “self-assessed tax shall include the tax payable in respect of details of outward supplies furnished under section 37, but not included in the return furnished under section 39.] (13) Where any penalty is imposed under section 73 or section 74 [or section 74A], no penalty for the same act or omission shall be imposed on the same person under any other provision of this Act.”

5.2 We are of the considered opinion that in case the aforesaid details of personal hearing are not incorporated in the notice DRC 01, before final order is passed against the assessee, he is required to be intimated the date, time and venue of personal hearing. We further clarify that respondents are not in fact required to issue Show Cause Notice calling upon him, but they are required to intimate the date, time and venue of personal hearing.

5.3 The second ground on which the impugned order is required to be set aside is that the same is absolutely an unreasoned order as though, the petitioner has remained absent in the proceedings, however, the same cannot absolve the State Tax Officer in passing the reasoned order after considering all the materials.

6 Hence, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 05.02.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 and subsequent proceedings arising from the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the jurisdictional State Tax Officer. He shall pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner an in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no orders as to costs. “

12. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Komal Jayeshbhai Hemavat v. STO 115 GST 402 (Guj), wherein this Court set aside an order passed under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act even though the assessee had selected “No” in the column relating to personal hearing. The relevant observations read as under:

7. It was incumbent upon the authority to follow the mandate of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and grant opportunity of further hearing. This Court in the decision in the case of M/s. Yadav Trailor Transport Co. v. Union of India And Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3027 of 2025, has held as under:

” 9.1 It has been categorically observed by this Court in the case of Regent Overseas Pvt Ltd (supra), that when three dates had been granted, it would tantamount to adjournments. However, the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Sec.33A of the Act provides for three adjournments, therefore, that would amount to 4 days and 3 adjournments. For ready reference, the observations made by this Court in the case of Regent Overseas Pvt Ltd (supra), are reproduced:

“12. Another aspect of the matter is that by the notice for personal hearing three dates have been fixed and absence of the petitioners on those three dates apepars to have been considered as grant of three adjournments as contemplated under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 33A of the Act. In this regard, it may be noted that sub-section (2) of section 33A of the Act provides for grant of not more than three adjournments, which would envisage four dates of personal hearing and not three dates, as mentioned in the notice for personal hearing. Therefore, even if by virtue of the dates stated in the notice for personal hearing it were assumed that adjournments were granted, it would amount to grant of two adjournments and not three adjournments, as grant of three adjournments would mean, in all four dates for personal hearing.

13. As discussed hereinabove, in view of the fact that the notice for personal hearing was not served upon the petitioners in accordance with law, no one could remain present for personal hearing on behalf of the petitioners on the dates specified in the notice and the adjudicating authority has proceeded on the footing that three adjournments have been granted and has passed the impugned ex parte order Such order is, therefore, clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice warranting interference by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

9.2 In wake of such submissions, the Order-in-Original is passed against the settled legal position and in breach of principles of natural justice.

9.3 It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not heard before passing of the Assessment Order. It is fundamental proposition of law that other side should be heard before any order is passed. The maxim of Audi Alteram Partem is broad enough to include the rule against bias since a fair hearing is must for it to be unbiased hearing. The essential ingredients of fair hearing is that a person should be served with a proper notice and should be given a right to hearing. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2023 passed under the Finance Act, 1994, as well as the Order-in- Appeal dated 25.06.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to de novo hear the petition and decide the same in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into merits of the matter. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.”

8. As per the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, the respondents are supposed to grant three opportunities of personal hearing before passing any adverse orders. Hence, the stand remains uncontroverted.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent authorities to pass a fresh order within a period of 12 weeks. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.”

13. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside on three grounds: first, the failure of the respondent authorities to intimate the date, time, and venue of personal hearing; second, the passing of a non-speaking order; and third, the failure to afford the petitioner three opportunities of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional State Tax Officer, who shall pass a fresh order after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

15. It is clarified that since the impugned order has been set aside, the petitioners’ claim for refund along with interest shall remain subject to the fresh order that may be passed by the respondent authority after considering the defense that may be raised by the petitioners in the remanded proceedings.

Assessment Notice Under Omitted Section 74 For FY 2024-25 Is Defective and Requires Fresh Notice Under Section 74A

Ashwani Kumar — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:51:30 +0000

Assessment Notice Under Omitted Section 74 For FY 2024-25 Is Defective and Requires Fresh Notice Under Section 74A

Issue

Whether an assessment notice issued under Section 74 for FY 2024-25 is legally unsustainable due to the omission of Sections 73/74 and mandatory applicability of Section 74A, and whether such defect constitutes a total lack of jurisdiction or a procedural error of invoking the wrong provision.

Facts

Period of Dispute: The matter pertains to Assessment Year/Financial Year 2024-25.
Issuance of SCN: The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) invoking Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 to make an assessment against the assessee.
Statutory Amendment: For FY 2024-25 onwards, Sections 73 and 74 were omitted from the Act and replaced by the single, unified provision of Section 74A.
Single Judge Ruling: The assessee challenged the assessment via a writ petition. The Single Judge held that Sections 73 and 74 had been omitted, ruled that the notice under Section 74 was without jurisdiction, and directed the Revenue to issue a fresh notice under Section 74A.
Writ Appeal by Revenue: The Revenue filed a writ appeal challenging the Single Judge’s observation regarding “want of jurisdiction.”

Decision

Applicability of Section 74A Confirmed: The Division Bench affirmed that Sections 73 and 74 were wiped out for FY 2024-25, leaving Section 74A as the sole applicable provision.
Clarification on Jurisdiction: The Court held that the Single Judge’s observation of “want of jurisdiction” was incorrect, as the assessing authority possessed statutory power, but committed a defect by invoking an incorrect/omitted statutory provision.
Direction for Fresh Proceedings: The direction to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 74A following due process was sustained, and the writ appeal was disposed of with instructions to issue a fresh notice under Section 74A.

Key Takeaways

Exclusivity of Section 74A for FY 2024-25 Onwards: Tax authorities must issue show cause notices exclusively under Section 74A for disputes pertaining to FY 2024-25 and subsequent periods.
Distinction Between Lack of Jurisdiction and Defective Notice: Invoking an omitted or wrong section does not automatically denote a complete lack of inherent jurisdiction; rather, it constitutes a curable procedural/statutory defect requiring fresh issuance under the correct provision.
Mandatory Fresh Notice: An assessment founded on an SCN issued under an omitted provision cannot be sustained and must be re-initiated via a fresh notice under the prevailing legal framework.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise

Baskar Selvakumar

C.V. Karthikeyan and A.R. Sakthivel, JJ.

WA(MD) No. 622 of 2026

JULY 7, 2026

R. Gowrishankar for the Petitioner. S. Renganathan for the Respondent.

ORDER

C.V. Karthikeyan J.- The Writ Appeal had been filed by the Revenue Officials /respondents in Baskar Selvakumar v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise [W.P.(MD) No.2625 of 2026, dated 03.02.2026] aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 03.02.2026.

2 .The said writ petition had been filed by the assessee challenging an order dated 24.11.2025 relating to the financial year 2024 -25 /assessment year 2025-26 for which the revenue had issued a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act. Thereafter, the impugned assessment order had also been passed.

3 .The main grievance raised in the writ petition was that provisions under Sections 73 & 74 of the GST Act stood repealed on and from the financial year 2024-25 and section 74 -A had been introduced, therefore it had been contented that any notice should have been issued only under Section 74 -A and not under the redundant provision, Section 74.

4 .As a fact, Sections 73 and 74 have been wiped out away from the statute book on and from the financial year 2024 – 25 and only Section 74-A had been introduced. The learned Single Judge on that ground has therefore directed that fresh notice to be issued under Section 74-A and the procedure thereof to be followed. However, he had opined that the notice issued under Section 74 had been issued “without any jurisdiction”. In our constrained opinion, this may not be the proper position. The notice had been issued under a wrong provision of law which has to be corrected. We have not examined the jurisdiction aspect of the Officer who issued the notice.

5 .With that clarification, this writ appeal stands disposed of by directing the appellant /Revenue Officials to follow the procedure as enunciated under Section 74-A of the GST Act and issue fresh notice following due procedure for the financial year 2024 – 2025. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.