Background of the Case

The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 for FY 2022-23 along with consequential recovery proceedings initiated through Form GST DRC-16. The dispute primarily related to levy of GST at the rate of 18% on works contract services executed for a State Government department. However, the petitioner questioned the very validity of the assessment order on the ground that the DRC-07 order dated 25.07.2023 did not bear the signature of the Proper Officer. The Revenue contended that the order had already been served by uploading it on the GST portal and that the writ petition had been filed with considerable delay. The matter was therefore placed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court to determine whether an unsigned assessment order could survive in law and whether the delay in approaching the Court would disentitle the petitioner from relief.

Arguments by the Appellant (Taxpayer)

The petitioner contended that the impugned DRC-07 order was void and unenforceable as it lacked the signature of the Proper Officer. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, including A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises and SRS Traders, wherein the Court had consistently held that an assessment order without a valid signature is legally defective and cannot be sustained. The petitioner further submitted that the assessment order had not been served through conventional means and was merely uploaded on the GST portal. It was argued that the petitioner became aware of the proceedings only subsequently and therefore the delay in approaching the Court ought not to defeat a challenge against an order suffering from a patent legal defect.

Respondent’s Response (Revenue Department)

The Revenue opposed the writ petition on the ground of delay and submitted that the petitioner had failed to explain the prolonged period between issuance of the assessment order and filing of the writ petition. The department further argued that Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act specifically recognizes uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal as a valid mode of service upon a registered person. Accordingly, the department contended that the petitioner could not avoid the consequences of the assessment merely by claiming lack of knowledge of the order. The Revenue therefore sought dismissal of the writ petition while defending the validity of the assessment proceedings.

Court Findings and Decision

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by its earlier judgments which had categorically ruled that the absence of the Proper Officer’s signature renders an assessment order invalid and that such a defect cannot be cured under Sections 160 or 169 of the GST Act. While the Court acknowledged the department’s objection regarding delay and recognized that uploading of orders on the GST portal is generally treated as a valid mode of service, it also took note of the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers under the GST regime and the recurring disputes relating to access and awareness of portal-based communications. Balancing the interests of both parties, the Court set aside the unsigned DRC-07 assessment order and remanded the matter to the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the relief was made subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks. The Court further directed that the period during which the writ petition remained pending shall be excluded for limitation purposes and left all issues open for reconsideration by the Proper Officer.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Unsigned GST Assessment Order appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Background of the Case

The present writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) arose from a GST demand challenged by Pagariya Auto Private Limited. The petitioner approached the High Court contending that the issue involved in the matter was squarely covered by the earlier judgment of the Bombay High Court in Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, wherein relief had been granted in cases involving bona fide and inadvertent errors under the GST regime.

During the course of hearing, the Revenue argued that although the GST Appellate Tribunal had not yet been constituted, the Government had already issued notifications and circulars providing that taxpayers intending to challenge appellate orders must deposit an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount over and above the earlier statutory pre-deposit made before the First Appellate Authority. The department further submitted that upon such deposit, coercive recovery proceedings would remain stayed.

Arguments by the Appellant (Taxpayer)

The petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present matter was fully covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd., which had consistently been followed by various Benches of the Bombay High Court. It was argued that the alleged discrepancy arose due to a bona fide and inadvertent mistake and therefore the petitioner should not be compelled to deposit an additional 10% amount merely because the GST Appellate Tribunal had not yet become operational.

The petitioner further contended that insistence on further pre-deposit despite settled judicial precedents would impose an unjust financial burden upon taxpayers, particularly when the demand itself was disputed on substantial legal grounds.

Respondent’s Response (Revenue Department)

The Revenue opposed the grant of interim relief and relied upon various judicial precedents as well as Government notifications and circulars issued in view of the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal. The department submitted that in such circumstances taxpayers desirous of challenging appellate orders are required to deposit an additional 10% of the disputed tax amount in addition to the earlier statutory deposit already made before the Commissioner (Appeals).

The department argued that once such additional deposit is made, the taxpayer would become entitled to protection from coercive recovery proceedings during pendency of the dispute.

Court Findings and Decision

The Bombay High Court was not impressed with the submissions advanced by the Revenue and prima facie accepted the petitioner’s contention that the matter was covered by the judgment in Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. The Court observed that where the alleged discrepancy arises out of a bona fide and inadvertent mistake, the taxpayer should not be compelled to make an additional 10% pre-deposit merely because the GST Appellate Tribunal has not yet been constituted.

Accordingly, the High Court issued notice in the writ petition and granted ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner by staying coercive action against the assessee without insisting upon the additional 10% deposit sought by the department. The ruling provides significant interim relief to taxpayers facing similar demands in absence of a functional GST Appellate Tribunal.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief: No Additional 10% GST Pre-Deposit Required Where Demand Arises Due to Bona Fide Error appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Background of the Case

The present writ petition before the Allahabad High Court arose from criminal proceedings initiated against an Advocate practicing in indirect taxes and corporate laws. The petitioner, an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and also an Advocate-on-Record before the Allahabad High Court, had been engaged by his client to file statutory GST appeals under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act against assessment orders passed under Section 74 of the GST Act involving substantial tax demands for FY 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. While filing the appeals, the petitioner utilized the assessee’s Electronic Credit Ledger and Input Tax Credit for payment of the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement in accordance with CBIC Circular dated 06.07.2022 and relying upon the Gujarat High Court judgment in Yasho Industries Ltd., which had also been upheld by the Supreme Court.

However, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeals on the ground that payment of pre-deposit through Electronic Credit Ledger was not maintainable. Subsequently, instead of proceeding merely against the assessee, the GST Department lodged an FIR against both the assessee and the Advocate alleging criminal conspiracy, tax evasion and financial loss to the State Exchequer. During pendency of the writ petition, a charge-sheet and cognizance order were also passed against the Advocate, which were additionally challenged before the High Court.

Arguments by the Appellant (Advocate)

The petitioner contended that he had acted purely in his professional capacity while advising and filing the statutory appeals on behalf of his client. It was argued that utilization of Input Tax Credit for payment of mandatory pre-deposit was based on a bona fide interpretation of law supported by the CBIC Circular and the judicial precedents of the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court in Yasho Industries Ltd.

The petitioner further submitted that even assuming the legal interpretation adopted by him was erroneous, the same could never constitute a criminal offence or conspiracy with the client. It was emphasized that the petitioner had no business connection with the assessee and merely discharged his professional obligations as an Advocate. The petitioner argued that criminal prosecution of an Advocate for legal advice or procedural actions taken during representation of a client would strike at the very independence of the legal profession and adversely affect the constitutional right of citizens to obtain legal assistance.

Respondent’s Response (GST Department/State)

The GST Department defended the FIR by alleging that the assessee had wrongfully utilized Input Tax Credit for payment of the statutory pre-deposit requirement and thereby attempted to evade tax liability. The department alleged that such actions caused financial loss to the State Exchequer and were undertaken in conspiracy between the assessee and the petitioner Advocate.

However, during the course of hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General and the Deputy Commissioner of GST were unable to satisfactorily explain the basis on which the petitioner Advocate had been implicated in the criminal proceedings merely for filing statutory appeals and adopting a particular legal interpretation regarding pre-deposit through Electronic Credit Ledger.

Court Findings and Decision

The Allahabad High Court strongly deprecated the action of the GST Department and held that the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance proceedings against the Advocate were wholly unsustainable in law. The Court observed that an Advocate, by virtue of his profession, is entitled to represent and defend clients fearlessly and independently, irrespective of the allegations involved against such clients. Merely because an Advocate adopts a particular legal position or files proceedings on behalf of a client, he cannot be treated as a conspirator in the alleged acts of the client.

The Court further observed that criminal prosecution of Advocates for professional acts performed during legal representation would strike at the very foundation of the legal profession and undermine the constitutional protections available under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The High Court specifically held that even if the GST Department believed that pre-deposit through Electronic Credit Ledger was legally impermissible, the petitioner’s action was still a professional act based on a particular interpretation of law and could never amount to criminal conspiracy.

Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order against the petitioner Advocate and held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to gross abuse of the process of law.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR Against GST Advocate: Filing Appeal Using ITC Cannot Amount to Criminal Conspiracy appeared first on Tax Unplug.

The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has issued an important update for taxpayers and professionals filing appeals through the GSTAT Portal. Considering the practical difficulties being faced during the initial phase of portal-based appeal filing, the Principal Bench, GSTAT has extended the relaxed procedural guidelines till 31st December 2026.

Background of Earlier Orders

Earlier, the GSTAT had issued Office Order dated 20.01.2026 and Instructions dated 10.03.2026 providing temporary procedural relaxations and clarity regarding filing requirements on the GSTAT portal.

Now, vide latest Instructions dated 14.05.2026, the Tribunal has clarified that the same guidelines shall continue to remain applicable till 31st December 2026 for ease of filing appeals by appellants.

Key Relief for Taxpayers & Professionals

The latest instructions primarily focus on reducing unnecessary defects during scrutiny of appeals and simplifying procedural compliance during the transition phase of GSTAT operations.

The Registrar / Joint Registrar / Deputy Registrar / Assistant Registrar have been directed to verify whether Form APL-05 contains:

• Show Cause Notice (SCN)
• Order-in-Original (OIO)
• Order-in-Appeal (OIA)
• Statement of Facts
• Grounds of Appeal
• Proof of Pre-deposit and Court Fees wherever applicable

No Defect for Certified Scanned Copies

A significant practical relief has also been provided in cases where the appellant uploads scanned certified copies of OIO/OIA.

The instructions clarify that where the scrutiny officer is satisfied from the endorsement appearing on the uploaded copy that it is a certified copy issued by the concerned authority, no defect flag should be raised merely because a physical certified copy is not separately uploaded.

Authorization / Vakalatnama Mandatory

The taxpayer is also required to upload:

• Authorization in favour of the tax professional, or
• Vakalatnama executed in favour of the Advocate

Digital Verification Requirement

The instructions also clarify that:

• One Verification and
• Digital Signature of Appellant

Special Clarification for Departmental Appeals

For applications filed by the Revenue Department under Section 112(3), the following documents have been prescribed:

• Show Cause Notice
• Order-in-Original
• Order-in-Appeal
• Opinion of Commissioner authorizing filing
• Statement of Facts
• Grounds of Appeal

To download the official instructions, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post GSTAT Extends Relaxed Filing Guidelines for Appeals till 31st December 2026 appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Background of the Case

A batch of writ appeals and connected matters came before the Karnataka High Court involving a common legal issue under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The dispute arose because GST authorities had issued consolidated show cause notices covering multiple financial years and tax periods in a single proceeding for alleged short payment of tax, wrongful availment of input tax credit, and related discrepancies. Various assessees challenged such notices contending that the GST framework under the CGST Act is fundamentally financial year specific and therefore separate show cause notices were mandatory for each tax period.

Several Single Bench decisions had granted relief to taxpayers by holding that separate proceedings should be initiated for separate financial years. Aggrieved by those orders, the Revenue preferred writ appeals before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court seeking clarity on whether consolidated notices under Sections 73 and 74 are legally permissible.

Arguments by the Appellant (Revenue)

The Revenue contended that neither Section 73 nor Section 74 of the CGST Act expressly prohibits issuance of consolidated show cause notices covering multiple tax periods. It was argued that the statute merely requires proper determination of tax not paid, short paid, or wrongly availed input tax credit and does not mandate separate proceedings for each financial year. The Department submitted that procedural forms and return mechanisms cannot override substantive statutory provisions. According to the Revenue, consolidated proceedings promote administrative efficiency, avoid multiplicity of litigation, and prevent duplication of adjudication where common issues and transactions are involved across several years.

It was further argued that as long as the taxpayer receives adequate opportunity of hearing and the notice clearly specifies the allegations and tax demands period-wise, such notices remain legally valid.

Respondent’s Response (Assessee)

The assessees argued that the entire GST scheme including filing of returns, reconciliation, annual returns, rectifications, maintenance of accounts, and assessment proceedings is structured around individual financial years and tax periods. It was contended that Form GST DRC-01 itself refers to a “tax period” and “financial year,” thereby indicating that proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 must also remain confined to a single financial year. The taxpayers further submitted that issuance of common notices for multiple years would create anomalies relating to limitation, adjudication, pecuniary jurisdiction, and applicability of Sections 73 and 74, particularly because Section 74 deals with fraud and suppression cases carrying different limitation periods.

Reliance was placed on several decisions of the Bombay, Kerala, Madras, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka High Courts where separate notices for different years were emphasized. It was also argued that consolidated notices could prejudice taxpayers by combining independent causes of action and extending limitation indirectly.

Court Findings and Decision

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court answered the core issue in favour of the Revenue and held that consolidated or common show cause notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act covering multiple financial years or tax periods are legally permissible. The Court observed that although various compliances under the GST regime may be linked to financial years or tax periods, the statute nowhere expressly restricts the issuance of a combined show cause notice. The Court held that procedural formats such as DRC-01 cannot control or curtail the substantive powers granted under the Act. It further observed that the object of Sections 73 and 74 is determination of tax liability and such determination can validly be undertaken through a consolidated proceeding when issues are interconnected.

The Division Bench accordingly held that common show cause notices do not become invalid merely because they cover multiple years, provided principles of natural justice are complied with and the demands are properly identifiable. Consequently, the Court upheld the validity of consolidated GST show cause notices and ruled in favour of the Revenue.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Karnataka High Court Allows Common SCN for Multiple Years Under Sections 73 & 74 appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Background of the Case

The appellant, a registered taxpayer under the GST law, was subjected to search proceedings wherein its premises were raided and books of accounts were seized by the department. Subsequently, a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 21.09.2023 was issued proposing action under Section 74 of the CGST/GGST Act. The petitioner duly filed a reply in Form DRC-06 on 21.11.2023 addressing the allegations raised in the notice. However, without granting any opportunity of personal hearing, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass an adverse order dated 30.12.2023 under Section 74.

Aggrieved by such action, the petitioner approached the High Court contending violation of principles of natural justice and statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the Act.

Arguments by the Appellant (Assessee)

The petitioner primarily contended that the impugned order was passed in complete violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates grant of opportunity of personal hearing before passing any adverse order. It was argued that despite filing a detailed reply to the show cause notice, no hearing opportunity was afforded, thereby rendering the order legally unsustainable. The petitioner emphasized that the requirement of personal hearing is not merely procedural but a substantive safeguard ensuring fair adjudication. It was further submitted that denial of such opportunity amounts to breach of principles of natural justice, particularly the doctrine of audi alteram partem, and hence the order deserved to be quashed.

Respondent’s Response (Revenue)

The Revenue defended its action by submitting that the petitioner, while filing reply in Form DRC-06, had opted “No” in the column relating to personal hearing, and therefore, no such opportunity was granted. It was argued that the adjudicating authority acted in accordance with the option exercised by the petitioner and there was no procedural lapse. However, the Revenue fairly acknowledged before the Court that Section 75(4) of the GST Act envisages grant of personal hearing opportunities, and the same were not provided in the present case. Despite this, the department attempted to justify that the petitioner’s own selection of “No hearing” disentitled it from claiming such opportunity.

Court Findings and Decision

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the GST Act cannot be overridden by any option selected by the assessee in Form DRC-06. The Court observed that it is incumbent upon the adjudicating authority to grant adequate opportunity of personal hearing before passing any adverse order, irrespective of such selection. Relying on settled principles of natural justice and earlier judicial precedents, the Court reiterated that fair hearing is a fundamental requirement and denial thereof vitiates the entire proceedings.

Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after granting proper opportunity of hearing within a stipulated time period.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Gujarat HC Quashes GST Order Passed Without Personal Hearing Despite Assessee Opting ‘No Hearing’ in DRC-06 appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a refund claim filed by the Respondent which is engaged in providing intermediary services to foreign entities and earning commission income. The Respondent initially treated certain services as “export of services” and accordingly paid Integrated GST (IGST) while filing the GSTR-3B return for October 2017. Subsequently, the Respondent reconsidered the nature of the transaction and treated the supply as an intra-State transaction, leading to the payment of Central GST (CGST) and State GST (SGST). As a result, the Respondent effectively paid tax twice on the same transaction. Seeking rectification, the Respondent filed an application under Section 54 of the CGST Act for refund of the IGST amount. However, the refund application dated 30.03.2024 was rejected by the authorities on the ground that it was filed beyond the statutory limitation period of two years.

The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the limitation under Section 54 was directory in nature, directing the authorities to process the refund claim.

Arguments by the Appellant (Revenue)

The Revenue authorities contended that Section 54 of the CGST Act clearly prescribes a limitation period of two years from the relevant date for filing refund claims, and the provision must be interpreted strictly as a mandatory requirement. It was argued that the learned Single Judge erred in treating the limitation period as directory, as doing so would effectively rewrite the statutory provision and undermine the scheme of the GST law. The Revenue further submitted that Rule 89(1A), introduced in 2021, provided a specific window allowing taxpayers to file refund claims within two years from the date of its introduction. Since the Respondent’s application was filed on 30.03.2024, it was beyond even the extended timeline and therefore rightly rejected.

The Revenue emphasized that GST legislation is a time-bound statutory framework where strict adherence to prescribed timelines ensures certainty and finality in tax administration.

Respondent’s Response (Assessee)

The Respondent contended that the refund claim arose due to the inadvertent payment of tax twice on the same transaction. It was submitted that the initial payment of IGST was made treating the services as exports, whereas the subsequent payment of CGST and SGST was made after realizing that the transaction constituted an intra-State supply. The Respondent further argued that the procedural framework for claiming refund under Rule 89(1A) of the CGST Rules was introduced only through Notification No. 35/2021 dated 24.09.2021, long after the original tax payments were made in 2017. Therefore, the strict application of the two-year limitation period would cause undue hardship and unjust enrichment of the Revenue.

It was also argued that when tax is collected without authority of law, the same must be refunded as mandated under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. According to the Respondent, the limitation prescribed under Section 54 should be treated as directory rather than mandatory in cases where tax has been paid mistakenly or twice.

Court Findings and Decision

The High Court of Karnataka examined the statutory scheme of the CGST Act and held that the two-year limitation prescribed under Section 54 for filing refund claims is mandatory and cannot be treated as merely directory. The Court observed that the GST law operates through a structured timeline framework, and relaxing such timelines without statutory backing could disrupt related provisions, particularly proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 relating to tax recovery and adjudication. However, the Court also recognized that the CGST Act does not provide any mechanism for condonation of delay in refund applications. In such circumstances, the Court held that taxpayers may invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of genuine hardship.

Considering that the entitlement to refund was undisputed and the delay was only about six months, the Court condoned the delay and directed the authorities to process the refund claim in accordance with law. The writ appeals were thus partly allowed, clarifying that while statutory limitation under Section 54 remains mandatory, the High Court retains constitutional power to grant relief in appropriate cases.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Karnataka High Court: Two-Year Limitation Under GST Refund (Section 54) Is Mandatory, but High Court Can Condone Delay Under Article 226 appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Background of the Case

The Appellants approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the manner in which summons proceedings were being conducted under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A summons had been issued to Appellant No.2 in connection with an inquiry relating to input tax credit availed by Appellant No.1 company on purchases allegedly made from two suppliers whose GST registrations were subsequently cancelled. The department initiated inquiry to examine the genuineness of such transactions. The Appellants confined their relief to a limited request seeking permission for Appellant No.2 to be accompanied by an advocate during the recording of statements and for the proceedings to be videographed at their own cost. Other broader prayers in the writ petition were not pressed at this stage.

Arguments by the Appellant

The Appellants contended that the transactions in question were genuine, duly supported by valid tax invoices, reflected in GSTR-2B returns and payments were made through proper banking channels. It was submitted that cancellation of suppliers’ registrations was under challenge in statutory appeals and the Appellants were willing to fully cooperate in the inquiry. A significant submission was that Appellant No.2 was undergoing treatment for cancer and humanitarian consideration was warranted. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Suumaya Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, it was argued that similar directions permitting videography and presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance had previously been granted. The Appellants clarified that the advocate would not interfere in the recording of statements and that videography would be conducted at their own expense.

Respondent’s Response

The respondents opposed the petition and submitted that Appellant No.2 was required to cooperate with the inquiry and furnish necessary documents as called for by the department. It was contended that the proceedings were conducted in official premises equipped with CCTV cameras and therefore additional directions for videography were not warranted. The department emphasized that the inquiry under Section 70 of the CGST Act was being conducted strictly in accordance with law. The respondents resisted the prayer for additional safeguards, arguing that existing mechanisms were sufficient to ensure fairness. However, they did not dispute that the Appellants had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Court Findings and Decision

The Bombay High Court observed that the request made by the Appellants could have been appropriately considered by the authorities, especially in light of Appellant No.2’s medical condition. The Court noted that in Suumaya Industries Ltd., a coordinate Bench had accepted a similar arrangement permitting videography and presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance. Taking into account the nature of the inquiry under Section 70 and the Appellant’s willingness to cooperate, the Court allowed the limited relief sought. It directed that the statements of Appellant No.2 be videographed at the Appellants’ cost and permitted the advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance without interfering in the proceedings. However, the Court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Bombay High Court: Allows Videography of GST Summons Proceedings; Advocate Permitted at Visible Distance Considering Assessee’s Health appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Uber India Systems Private Limited, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 12.06.2024 issued by the GST authorities. The impugned notice sought to demand tax and impose penalties for the financial years 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21 through a single consolidated proceeding. Aggrieved by the clubbing of multiple tax periods in one notice, the appellant contended that such action was arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles. It was argued that each financial year constitutes a separate unit of assessment and cannot be combined into a single show cause proceeding. The appellant also sought interim protection restraining the department from proceeding with adjudication. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court at Amaravati.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant primarily contended that issuance of a common show cause notice for multiple taxation periods was legally unsustainable. It was submitted that assessments under GST are period-specific, and therefore, separate notices must be issued for each financial year. Reliance was placed on the earlier judgment of the High Court in S.J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner, wherein it was held that different taxation periods cannot be clubbed in a single show cause notice. The appellant argued that the impugned notice violated this settled position of law. It was further submitted that such consolidation causes procedural prejudice and undermines fairness in adjudication. On these grounds, the appellant sought quashing of the notice while leaving liberty to the department to proceed in accordance with law.

Respondent’s Response

The departmental authorities opposed the writ petition and defended the issuance of the impugned show cause notice. It was submitted that the notice was issued within the statutory framework and called upon the appellant to explain why tax and penalties should not be imposed for the relevant periods. The respondents argued that interference at the stage of show cause notice should be limited. The department also sought vacating of the interim protection earlier granted to the appellant. It was contended that the adjudication process should be allowed to proceed in the normal course. However, the principal issue before the Court remained whether multiple financial years could be combined in a single notice.

Court Findings and Decision

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the impugned notice admittedly covered more than one taxation period, namely from 2018–19 to 2020–21. Referring to its earlier decision in S.J Constructions, the Court reiterated that separate show cause notices must be issued for each taxation period or financial year. Following the binding precedent, the Court held that a common notice clubbing different periods is not permissible in law. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice dated 12.06.2024 was set aside. However, the Court clarified that the authorities are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law by issuing separate notices. The writ petition was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post High Court of Andhra Pradesh Quashes Common Show Cause Notice Covering Multiple Tax Periods appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Court’s Key Observations

The Court clarified that Section 73(2) is intended to provide a meaningful opportunity of hearing to the taxpayer. The three-month period is necessary to enable filing of replies, conduct of personal hearings, grant of adjournments, and exercise of the option for voluntary payment under Section 73(5). Any reduction in this statutory time defeats the principles of natural justice.

The Court rejected the department’s argument that the three-month gap applies only when notices are issued close to the limitation period. It held that the requirement applies in all cases, regardless of when the SCN is issued.

Decision of the Court

Since the SCN was issued on 18 November 2024 and the final order was passed on 31 January 2025, the statutory three-month gap was not maintained. Accordingly, the SCN and the final order were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Key Takeaway for Taxpayers

GST adjudication orders passed without observing the mandatory three-month gap under Section 73 are liable to be set aside, even if issued within the limitation period.

To download official order, click here.

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Bombay High Court Mandates 3-Months Gap Between SCN & Issuance of Order Under Section 73 of CGST Act appeared first on Tax Unplug.