P. Venkataramaniah & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner ST
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
P. Venkataramaniah & Co., a partnership providing works contract services to government departments, challenged a composite assessment spanning multiple tax periods. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 2136 of 2025, 8 July 2026) under Sections 73 and 75 set aside the clubbed order as invalid and granted liberty to initiate separate proceedings through period-wise notices. Outcome favoured the assessee. Continues Andhra Pradesh High Court practice invalidating multi-period DRC-07 orders in standard demand cases. Government contractors should expect year-specific SCNs if department revisits assessments. Informational for CA practice; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-08, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO: 2136 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST S.75. 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.
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.75 — General provisions relating to determination of tax.
Source documents
Similar rulings
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.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Harphool Chowdhury @ Harphool Choudhary v. State of West Bengal
Harphool Chowdhury challenged an adjudication order for July 2017 to March 2018 before the High Court of Calcutta (WPA No. 1952 of 2026, 7 September 2026). Under Sections 73 and 75 of the CGST Act, personal hearing is mandatory where an adverse decision is contemplated; the show cause notice indicated such a decision yet no opportunity of hearing was granted. The order was unsustainable and quashed; the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after personal hearing. An attachment order linked to the defective adjudication was also set aside. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Chartered accountants should verify DRC-01 hearing schedules and compliance with Section 75(4) before final orders. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-07, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WPA NO.1952 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST S.75. 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.