Demands Adjudication case laws

MS Sarada Refrigeration and Air Condition v. State of Assam

MS Sarada Refrigeration and Air Condition (WP(C) No. 2345 of 2026) prevailed before the Gauhati High Court on 17 June 2026. The proper officer had passed an order in original under Section 73(9) after issuing only a summary show cause notice in Form DRC-01, without a substantive notice under Section 73(1) detailing cause of action. Following Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd., the court quashed the order dated 8 March 2024 and directed issuance of a proper Section 73(1) notice dating back to the summary notice, with limitation under Section 73(10) excluded for the interim period. Outcome favoured the assessee. Rule 142 summaries cannot replace full show cause notices. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-17, the High Court recorded as recorded in the order in the writ petition. Central provisions engaged included 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.

B.K. Steels v. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

B.K. Steels (Telangana High Court, WP 17499 of 2026, 15 June 2026) returned after earlier writ remand directing adjudication on original show cause under Sections 74 and 75 following personal-hearing violation. Despite directions, Assessing Officer issued second show cause and fresh order for same year, effectively restarting proceedings. Court held second notice impermissible and beyond remand scope; authority must adjudicate first show cause only after granting compliant hearing and considering reply. Impugned order set aside with consequential directions preserving prior High Court mandate. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. Important for litigation strategy after partial writ wins—department must adhere strictly to remand terms. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.

KPR Enterprises v. State Tax Officer

In favour of the revenue

KPR Enterprises, engaged in rock boulder sales, challenged extended limitation and procedure before the High Court of Madras (W.P. Nos. 35453, 35458 and 35463 of 2024, 12 June 2026). Revenue compared declared turnover with high seigniorage fee payments and estimated escaped turnover using the National Standard Method, justifying notice under Section 74 read with Section 75. The court found prima facie material supported invocation of fraud/suppression limitation and dismissed the writ as meritless. Outcome favoured the revenue. The case illustrates how non-GST records (mining/seigniorage data) may underpin GST demand in quarrying businesses. Appeal under Section 107 remains the appropriate further forum for detailed challenge. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-12, High Court of Madras recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P. NOS. 35453, 35458 AND 35463 OF 2024. 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.

Debojit Deb v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee

Debojit Deb (Gauhati High Court, WP(C) 1653 of 2026, 12 June 2026, Kardak Ete, J.) executed government works contracts claiming service tax exemption under applicable notification while department raised demand referencing only Income-tax Form 26AS entries without independent verification or recording prerequisites for extended limitation under Finance Act 1994 Sections 73, 75, 77 and 78. Transition to GST via Section 142 did not cure jurisdictional defect in adjudication approach. Demand lacked substantiation beyond third-party tax deduction data. Court set aside order as unauthorized assumption of jurisdiction. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Pre-GST service tax disputes illustrate limits of 26AS-only adjudication. Editorial summary for Chartered Universe; not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.

State of Karnataka v. Sudhanva Engineers and Builders A Sole Proprietorship

In favour of the revenue

In Writ Appeal No. 718 of 2025, decided by the Karnataka High Court on 10 June 2026, the State challenged directions that would require GST authorities to permit revised returns and waive interest, penalty, or limitation for a contractor seeking reimbursement of incremental GST on a government works contract. The contractor had argued contractual entitlement to pass-through of post-GST tax; the appellate bench held that reimbursement of tax paid or payable after 1 July 2017 is strictly a dispute between contractor and employer under their agreement. Statutory liability under section 9 and allied CGST provisions cannot be reshaped by contract, and courts cannot direct tax authorities to waive compliance timelines or limitation. Sections 73 and 108 were discussed in that context. The appeal favoured the revenue by confining contractual reimbursement to the employer relationship. Not legal advice.

Nuvteq Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-5)

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Nuvteq Solutions (P.) Ltd. challenged denial of export-of-services refund before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 16115 of 2026, 10 June 2026). Adjudication and appellate orders rejected eligibility solely for alleged non-furnishing of Letter of Undertaking under Section 54 and Rule 96A, without examining transaction nature or whether LUT was in fact furnished. Both orders were quashed and remanded for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and refund entitlement based on actual LUT compliance and export evidence. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Export service providers should maintain LUT filings and reconcile with refund rejections on merits, not bare procedural labels. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-10, High Court of Karnataka recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WRIT PETITION NO. 16115 OF 2026 (T-RES). Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST S.54, CGST Rules R.96A. 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.

Rithwik Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee

Rithwik Projects (P.) Ltd., a construction company, challenged consolidated show cause notice and composite order demanding GST, interest, and penalty for multiple years. The High Court of Bombay (Writ Petition No. 4061 of 2026, 9 June 2026) under Section 74 held clubbing of periods beyond statutory jurisdiction; assessments must be period-specific. Consolidated notice, order, and recovery were void ab initio and not cured by admission or estoppel; writ was maintainable. All impugned actions were quashed. Outcome favoured the assessee. Bombay High Court joins other forums in rejecting composite fraud proceedings across FYs. Construction sector audits often span multiple years—periodisation is critical. Informational; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-09, High Court of Bombay recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT PETITION NO. 4061 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.

ISC Processors (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North

In favour of the revenue

ISC Processors (P.) Ltd. filed a writ under Article 226 against a show cause notice, citing lack of jurisdiction and bona fide GST-paid purchases, while the department alleged supplies from non-existent vendors and ineligible ITC. The High Court of Calcutta (WPA No. 10744 of 2026, 9 June 2026), applying Section 75, declined interference because only a notice existed and full statutory adjudication—including reply and hearing—remained available. The petitioner was directed to respond and the authority to adjudicate after hearing both sides. Outcome favoured the revenue in the sense that the writ was not entertained on merits at the pre-adjudication stage. Residual disputes are for the adjudication and appeal chain. Informational summary; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-09, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the revenue in WPA NO. 10744 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, Constitution Art.226. 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.

Tvl. Technocast Foundry v. State Tax Officer

In favour of the revenue

Tvl. Technocast Foundry, a registered manufacturer, challenged tax demands before the Madras High Court on 8 June 2026 in connected writ petitions. The dispute arose after the assessee failed to maintain prescribed job-work records or file Form ITC-04, attributing gaps to alleged technical issues, and could not prove timely return of goods sent for job work. Under section 143 of the CGST Act read with Rule 45, movement without compliance was treated as a taxable supply, supporting tax, interest, and equal penalty. Extended limitation under section 74 was upheld because statutory exceptions were not attracted and the threshold for such invocation under GST is lower than under prior indirect tax regimes. The Court dismissed the writs, favouring the revenue. The decision underscores job-work documentation obligations for manufacturers. Not legal advice.

Tvl. K.Ezhil Arasan, Contractor v. Joint Commissioner (ST) Intelligence

In favour of the revenue

Contractor Tvl. K. Ezhil Arasan challenged demand orders before the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 172 and 382 of 2025, decided 8 June 2026, confirming tax, interest, and penalty under section 74 of the CGST Act. The proceedings followed show cause notices citing discrepancies between GSTR-9, Form 26AS, GSTR-7, and GSTR-3B, with allegations of willful misstatement or suppression to evade tax. The petitioner's replies did not effectively rebut the department's material, including inspection records. The Court held that invocation of section 74 and confirmation of equal penalty on prima facie suppression was valid and not amenable to writ review at the interim stage. The writ petitions were dismissed and the outcome favoured the revenue. This summary is intended for chartered accountants and is not legal advice.

Tata Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

In favour of the revenue

Tata Projects Ltd. and connected petitioners challenged consolidated show cause notices and consolidated demand orders spanning multiple financial years before the Gauhati High Court in writ petitions decided on 8 June 2026. They argued that sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act require financial-year-wise segregation of notices and orders, and that composite proceedings breached limitation and fairness. Justice Devashis Baruah held the statutes do not mandate separate notices or orders for each year where a composite demand is raised, provided there is no statutory bar or Article 14 violation. Limitation principles must still be applied period-wise when assessing validity. Consolidated proceedings were upheld and the petitions were dismissed in favour of the revenue. The ruling is useful for CAs advising on multi-year SCNs and composite DRC-07 orders. Not legal advice.

Southern Steels v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

In favour of the revenue

Southern Steels, which operated two GST registrations, challenged invocation of the extended limitation period before the Madras High Court in consolidated writ petitions decided on 8 June 2026. Department inspection had revealed circular transactions and fictitious input tax credit on non-supplies across the registrations. The assessee argued procedural defects in proceedings tied to the Erode registration. The Court, referring to sections 74 and 75 of the CGST Act and Rule 142, held that prima facie findings of fraud or collusion justified extended-period invocation for both registrations, and that procedural requirements for the Erode registration had been duly followed. It emphasised that the threshold for invoking extended limitation under the GST regime is lower than under earlier indirect tax laws. The writs were dismissed, favouring the revenue. For CA reference only; not legal advice.

Sameera Hotels (Chennai) (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer (Inspection-I)

In favour of the revenue

Sameera Hotels (Chennai) (P.) Ltd. (W.P. Nos. 33258 et seq. of 2025) failed to quash Section 74 proceedings before the High Court of Madras on 8 June 2026. Revenue showed excess ITC availment over GSTR-2A and non-payment of reverse charge on foreign agency commissions, constituting wrongful availment and suppression with intent to evade tax. Extended limitation under Sections 73, 74, and 75 was justified. Writ dismissed; outcome favoured the revenue. Hospitality and agency-fee structures should reconcile 2A, RCM liabilities, and ITC claims to avoid fraud-track notices. Merits may still be contested in appeal. Informational summary; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-08, High Court of Madras recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P. NOS. 33258, 33262, 33268, 33272 AND 33275 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74, 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.

Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

In favour of the revenue

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.

MNS Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

In favour of the revenue

MNS Enterprises and related writ petitioners challenged adjudication orders confirming fraudulent input tax credit based partly on a key witness’s statement, complaining of denied cross-examination. The High Court of Madras (W.P. Nos. 20547, 20549 & 20552 of 2023, 3 June 2026) held under Sections 74, 70, and 75 that cross-examination is not an absolute right in every GST inquiry; bogus ITC allegations may be rebutted with documentary evidence. Denial of cross-examination alone did not vitiate the orders. Writ was dismissed; statutory appeal was the proper remedy. Outcome favoured the revenue. CA teams defending ITC cases should prioritise invoice, logistics, and payment proof over procedural demands for witness cross-examination at writ stage. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-03, High Court of Madras recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P. NOS. 20547, 20549 & 20552 OF 2023. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74, CGST S.70, 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.

GR Tech Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

GR Tech Services (P.) Ltd. obtained relief from the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 15670 of 2026, 3 June 2026) where tax was initially paid as IGST on a transaction later treated as intra-State, requiring CGST and KGST. The Assistant Commissioner demanded additional tax, interest, and penalty under Sections 73, 77, and 79 without properly adjusting or refunding the IGST already paid, contrary to refund rules (Rules 92 and 145). The impugned demand orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in compliance with the statutory scheme for reclassification and refund. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Key takeaway: recharacterisation of supply must follow adjustment/refund mechanics, not parallel demand alone. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-03, High Court of Karnataka recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WRIT PETITION NO. 15670 OF 2026 (T-RES). Central provisions engaged included CGST S.77, CGST S.73, CGST S.79. 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.

Evm Motors and Vehicles India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Director

In favour of the assessee

In EVM Motors and Vehicles India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Director (WP (C) No. 41857 of 2025), the High Court of Kerala on 2 June 2026 quashed a composite show cause notice spanning multiple financial years in non-fraud proceedings under Sections 73 and 75 of the CGST Act. The court applied settled law that a single consolidated notice covering several years is impermissible where fraud or wilful misstatement is not involved. The department was granted liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year, with limitation to be computed afresh for each period. The writ was allowed in favour of the assessee. For chartered accountants, the decision reinforces period-wise adjudication as a structural requirement in ordinary demand proceedings. Not legal advice.