Brahmaputra Tele Productions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Brahmaputra Tele Productions (P.) Ltd. (Gauhati High Court, 29 July 2026, Devashis Baruah, J.) impugned Assam GST order dated 30 April 2024 imposing tax, interest and penalty for FY 2018-19 under Sections 73 and 75. Petitioner demonstrated no State notification extended limitation under Section 168A for that financial year, unlike centrally notified extensions. Statutory period for passing order expired 31 December 2023; April 2024 order time-barred and void. Court set aside demand. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Practitioners must verify State-specific Section 168A notifications when defending aged SCNs, not only central COVID-era extensions, before conceding liability. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice. The court left substantive tax merits open for the authority to decide afresh on record.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.73 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid (non-fraud cases).
- CGST S.168A — Power of Government to extend time limits in special circumstances.
- CGST S.75 — General provisions relating to determination of tax.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. (Madras High Court, WP 23220 and 23540 of 2024, 8 June 2026, C. Saravanan, J.) challenged parallel audit-based and scrutiny-based show cause notices for identical period after NCLT-approved merger transferring unutilized ITC and liabilities (Sections 44, 65, 73, 74, 75, 168A). Petitioner argued duplication and limitation defects. Court held separate notices permissible because audit and scrutiny originate from distinct statutory processes; facts indicated suppression warranting Section 74 extended limitation when properly pleaded. Writ premature—disputed questions require adjudication on merits rather than Article 226 shortcut. Petitions dismissed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Merger transitions under Section 44 annual returns remain sensitive trigger for multi-track proceedings. Informational summary. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal
Arup Datta (Calcutta High Court, WPA 17892 of 2026, 24 September 2026, Sumita Das De, J.) challenged demand of tax, interest and penalty under Sections 73 and 75 where show cause notice and ex parte adjudication order were uploaded on GST portal without direct intimation. Petitioner filed reply yet received no personal hearing before order-in-original, violating audi alteram partem embedded in Section 75(4) scheme and fair service expectations under Section 169 context. Court quashed impugned adjudication and directed reconsideration after effective hearing with communicated schedule. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. West Bengal portal-service cases increasingly scrutinize ‘additional notices’ tabs and silent ex parte orders. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Raj Kumar Borthakur v. Joint Commissioner of Revenue
Raj Kumar Borthakur (WPA No. 464 of 2026) challenged an adjudication order for April 2017 to March 2018 before the High Court of Calcutta on 9 September 2026. The confirmed demand for tax, interest, and penalty exceeded amounts proposed in the show cause notice, which Sections 73 and 75 do not permit without fresh notice on enhanced grounds. The court remanded by treating the impugned order as a new show cause notice and requiring fresh response and adjudication. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Enhanced demands without supplemental SCN remain a common adjudication defect in West Bengal GST practice. CAs should reconcile DRC-01 figures with DRC-07 before advising payment. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-09, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WPA NO. 464 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, CGST S.73. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Babita Sharma v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue
Babita Sharma (Calcutta High Court, WPA 1633 of 2026, 9 September 2026, Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) received order under Section 73 passed after summary show cause without personal hearing or communicated date, time and venue—contravening Section 75(4) mandatory hearing framework. Court set aside order directing fresh adjudication. Because writ was belated, relief conditioned on deposit of ten per cent of disputed tax as equitable precondition to remand. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded subject to deposit. Shows courts may impose partial pre-deposit even in natural-justice successes when writ delay exists, alongside full rehearing rights. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice. The court left substantive tax merits open for the authority to decide afresh on record.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Sumin Dutta v. State of West Bengal
Sumin Dutta challenged GST adjudication before the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 17905 of 2026, decided 8 September 2026. A summary show cause notice and subsequent ex parte order were uploaded only under the GST portal's "Additional Notices and Orders" tab without separate intimation, which delayed the assessee's awareness and reply. Personal hearing was not granted despite the explicit mandate of section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The Court found cumulative procedural infirmities under sections 73, 75, and 169 sufficient to vitiate the adjudication process and the resulting demand. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the assessee's reply after affording a proper personal hearing and passing a fresh speaking order on merits. The outcome favoured the assessee with remand. This summary is for professional reading only and is not legal advice.