Gita Rani Pan v. Union of India
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
The High Court of Calcutta (W.P.A. No. 10402 of 2025, 27 August 2026) set aside fraud-related demand and recovery action where notice and recovery were issued in the name of a deceased sole proprietor. Gita Rani Pan, as legal representative, challenged proceedings under Sections 74 and 93 of the CGST Act. The court held that determination against a person who no longer existed was void ab initio; a show cause notice in such cases must be directed to legal representatives under the post-death liability scheme, not to the deceased taxpayer. Consequent demand and recovery based on the defective notice could not stand. The writ succeeded for the assessee. The ruling clarifies procedural prerequisites before invoking extended limitation under Section 74 against an estate. Not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.74 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid involving fraud or suppression.
- CGST S.93 — Liability in case of death of a taxable person; estate responsibility.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Jaiwanti v. Union of India
Jaiwanti, as legal representative, challenged show cause and penalty proceedings arising from alleged fraudulent input tax credit and IGST refund claims of a deceased person. The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 7254 of 2025, 25 September 2026) upheld the department’s action under Section 93 of the CGST Act, which permits post-death determination of tax, interest, and penalty to the extent of the deceased’s estate. Investigation and recovery against legal heirs were jurisdictionally valid; Article 14 and related provisions did not assist the petitioner. Outcome favoured the revenue. This contrasts with cases where notices are issued only in the deceased’s name without proper representation procedure. For estate planning and GST compliance, Section 93 mechanics are central. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-25, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P.(C) NO.7254 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.93, CGST S.73, CGST S.74. 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 revenue
Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 10213 of 2025, judgment dated 29 September 2026) declined to interfere at the show-cause stage in proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Rules 101 and 142. Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd., a medicine distributor, challenged a show cause notice and the appropriation of amounts deposited during audit, alleging coercion, limitation errors, incorrect computation, and lack of jurisdiction. The bench held that statutory adjudication had already commenced and the notice had not finally determined tax liability. Objections—including whether payment was voluntary—were matters for the adjudicating authority after reply and hearing. Premature writ relief was unwarranted. The outcome favoured the revenue; the assessee was left to pursue its defences in the pending adjudication.
In favour of the assessee
Venspra Impex v. Deputy Commissioner ST
Venspra Impex filed Writ Petition No. 26359 of 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, decided 16 September 2026, against a single composite assessment order under section 74 of the CGST Act covering multiple tax periods in one Form GST DRC-07. Following consistent doctrine of the bench, the Court ruled that each tax period requires distinct notice and adjudication; consolidated assessment is unsustainable and undermines appellate remedies and period-wise limitation analysis. The impugned consolidated order was set aside with liberty to the department to issue separate notices and pass separate orders for each period if so advised. The decision favoured the assessee and aligns with other Andhra Pradesh judgments on multi-period demands. This summary is for professional awareness only and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Hanumant Steel Traders v. Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax
Hanumant Steel Traders (WPT Nos. 11, 12 and 15 of 2026) succeeded before the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 9 September 2026 against show cause notices under Section 74 alleging input tax credit through fake invoices. The court found the notices reproduced statutory phrases on fraud or suppression without disclosing foundational facts or adequate reasoning. Such skeletal notices could not sustain coercive action. The notices were quashed with liberty to the department to issue fresh notices conforming to principles of natural justice and Section 74 requirements. Outcome favoured the assessee. The decision underscores that invocation of extended limitation for fraud must be factually substantiated in the notice itself. Summary for CA readers only; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-09, High Court of Chhattisgarh recorded in favour of the assessee in WPT NO. 11, 12 AND 15 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74. 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 revenue
Supra Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner
Supra Enterprises, a GST-registered partnership, filed W.P.(C) No. 11352 of 2024 before the Delhi High Court; the matter was decided on 31 August 2026 against a demand following a show cause notice alleging suppression and wrongful availment of input tax credit. The department contended that full opportunity to reply and be heard was provided, and that remaining disputes concerned appraisal of records and merits under sections 73, 74, 65, and 75 of the CGST Act. The Court agreed that where replies were on record and issues are essentially factual or evidentiary, Article 226 is not a substitute for appellate scrutiny under the GST statute. The writ petition was held not maintainable and the assessee was relegated to the statutory appeal forum. The decision favoured the revenue on jurisdiction. This editorial note is not legal advice.