Phoenix Medical Syatems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Phoenix Medical Systems (P.) Ltd. (Writ Petition No. 22371 of 2024) challenged a Section 74 assessment before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 8 July 2026. The adjudicating authority did not consider the assessee’s reply and failed to grant mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) where an adverse DRC-07 was contemplated. The vitiated order and consequential proceedings were quashed. Outcome favoured the assessee. Sections 74 and 107 frame appeal rights after valid adjudication; defective hearing renders the order a nullity at writ stage. Medical device and pharma distributors facing fraud notices should document hearing requests and replies. Informational; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-08, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 22371 OF 2024. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74, CGST S.75, CGST S.107. 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.74 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid involving fraud or suppression.
- CGST S.75 — General provisions relating to determination of tax.
- CGST S.107 — Appeals to the Appellate Authority.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Ragini Communication v. Union of India
Ragini Communication argued before the High Court of Gauhati (WP(C) No. 3640 of 2025, 3 September 2026) that no valid Section 73 notice was served for alleged wrongful ITC. Records showed service of a detailed demand-cum-show-cause notice for the relevant period under Rules 142 and Section 75. The writ under Article 226 was dismissed as unfounded on the notice issue; proceedings were not without jurisdiction. Residual grievances were relegated to appeal under Section 107. Outcome favoured the revenue. Assessees claiming non-service must prove portal or physical service records carefully; consolidated DRC-01 with substance may suffice in Gauhati. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-03, High Court of Gauhati recorded in favour of the revenue in WP(C) NO. 3640 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST Rules R.142, 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.
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.
In favour of the revenue
Shub Conductors LLP v. Joint Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi East Delhi
Shub Conductors LLP (W.P. (C) No. 4126 of 2025) sought writ relief against CGST show cause notice issued before SGST action on overlapping periods, citing Section 6(2)(b) bar on parallel proceedings. The High Court of Delhi on 5 August 2026 (Sections 6, 67, 74; Articles 226 and 227) held the bar was not attracted on the facts and jurisdictional objection could not bypass statutory appeal under Section 107. Writ interference was unwarranted; outcome favoured the revenue. Intelligence-driven dual notices require careful analysis of which authority leads and whether Section 6 actually prohibits sequential or overlapping investigation. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-08-05, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P. (C) NO. 4126 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.6, CGST S.74, CGST S.67. 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
Sanat Kumar Hazra v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Howrah and Kadamtala Charge
Sanat Kumar Hazra (WPA No. 27554 of 2025) challenged an ex parte Section 74 order uploaded on the wrong GST portal tab, escaping notice. The High Court of Calcutta on 8 July 2026 set aside the order and granted opportunity to contest the show cause notice subject to deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards disputed tax under Sections 74 and 75. Outcome: assessee favoured with conditional remand. Portal hygiene and assessee vigilance on all tabs matter for timely challenge. Deposit conditions balance revenue protection with restored hearing rights. CAs should monitor DRC-07 publications across portal sections. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-08, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WPA NO. 27554 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74, 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.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
WFB Baird and Company India (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer I
WFB Baird and Company India (P.) Ltd. approached the Madras High Court in WP Nos. 24237 and 24239 of 2026, decided 7 July 2026, against a demand raised under section 74 of the CGST Act for alleged excess input tax credit from return mismatches. The show cause notice did not allege fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that without ingredients required for section 74, proceedings must run under section 73, rendering the assessment order unsustainable. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision under the correct section, with liberty to claim applicable statutory reliefs including those under section 128A where relevant. The outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Useful for distinguishing section 73 versus 74 in ITC mismatch cases. Not legal advice.