Demands Adjudication case laws

Jubilant Avenues (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Tax

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Jubilant Avenues (P.) Ltd. assailed a single composite adjudication order under Section 74 for multiple financial years alleging fraud. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 21486 of 2026, 5 August 2026) held that even in Section 74 proceedings each tax period requires separate adjudication; one composite order could not confirm liability across years. The impugned order was set aside with liberty to pass period-wise orders after due notice and hearing. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Aligns with Andhra Pradesh jurisprudence on invalid clubbing of assessment periods. Departments must structure fraud proceedings year-by-year to survive judicial scrutiny. Informational summary for professionals; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-08-05, High Court of Andhra Pradesh recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WRIT PETITION NO. 21486 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.

Sagar Ghosh v. Deputy Commissioner, State GST

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Sagar Ghosh (W.P.A. No. 1197 of 2026) raised pure jurisdictional questions—competence and cross-empowerment—against adjudication, appellate, and recovery steps under Section 74, without disputed facts. The High Court of Calcutta on 31 July 2026 held the writ maintainable despite an alternate remedy where only legal issues were involved, and remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide jurisdiction first. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Useful precedent when challenging officer designation or dual jurisdiction at the threshold rather than on ITC merits. Jurisdictional defects may be agitated in writ when fact-finding is unnecessary. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-31, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in W.P.A. NO. 1197 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.

Brahmaputra Tele Productions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

In favour of the assessee

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.

SKG Metal Trading v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax

In favour of the revenue

SKG Metal Trading filed a writ before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 3895 of 2026, decided 23 July 2026, impugning an ex parte order confirming penalty for wrongful input tax credit. The assessee alleged non-service of the show cause notice and asserted that business had ceased with a registration cancellation application pending. The revenue disputed both service of notice and whether registration still subsisted, creating contested facts. Applying Article 226 principles and provisions including sections 74 and 169 of the CGST Act, the Court held that where such factual disputes exist, extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy; the assessee must pursue the statutory appellate channel. For limitation purposes, the period during which the writ remained pending was directed to be excluded from computing time to file appeal. The decision favoured the revenue on maintainability. This summary is not legal advice.

J M D News & Advertisers v. State of Uttarakhand

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

J M D News & Advertisers (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 54 of 2025) obtained quashing and remand from the High Court of Uttarakhand on 23 July 2026. The assessee had filed a manual reply to a show cause notice within time under Sections 73 and 75, but the adjudicating authority passed an order without considering it. The department’s objection to non-electronic filing and the assessee’s absence on a hearing date did not justify ignoring the reply. The court held a gross violation of natural justice vitiated the order. Fresh adjudication must consider the reply on merits. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Highlights that substantive compliance with reply timelines matters more than format alone where replies are accepted in practice. Not legal advice.

v. Superintendent Central GST and CX

In favour of the assessee

M/s. J.S. Enterprisers, through legal heir Jyoti Ranjan Mohapatra, challenged section 73 proceedings before the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No.13452 of 2026, decided 22 July 2026. Show cause notices and an order-in-original were issued and passed in the name of deceased proprietor Manoranjan Mohapatra despite departmental knowledge of his death and approved non-core amendments to registration showing the legal heir. The Court held adjudication against a dead person is non est and without jurisdiction; section 93 of the CGST Act contemplates liability proceedings against legal representatives, not determination solely in the deceased's name. Participation by a representative did not cure the defect. All impugned SCNs and orders were quashed with liberty to issue fresh notice to the legal heir. Outcome favoured the assessee. Not legal advice.

B. Enterprise v. State of West Bengal

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

B. Enterprise (Calcutta High Court, WPA 1078 of 2026, 21 July 2026, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) faced show cause proposing input tax credit reversal for portal-flagged mismatches during relevant period. Notice lacked hearing details and appeared under ‘Additional notices and orders’ tab rather than primary notice channel, leading to ex parte order under Sections 73 and 75. Court held deficient notice and absent hearing breached natural justice, vitiating ex parte confirmation. Impugned order set aside; adjudicating authority to re-adjudicate after proper notice specifying hearing date, time and venue. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. Emphasizes monitoring all portal tabs and insisting on Section 75(4) compliance. Informational summary. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.

North East Petrochemicals v. Union of India

In favour of the revenue

North East Petrochemicals challenged consolidated show cause notice and a single order covering multiple financial years before the High Court of Gauhati (WP(C) No. 2884 of 2026, 17 July 2026). Under Sections 73 and 107, Justice Devashis Barua held issuance of consolidated notice and order was within the proper officer’s jurisdiction and authority; competence could not be assailed on that ground alone. Merits were left open for statutory appeal. Outcome favoured the revenue on the jurisdictional point. This Gauhati view differs from several sister High Courts that quash composite orders in Section 73 matters. Practitioners must weigh forum-specific precedent when advising on multi-year notices. Informational summary only; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-17, High Court of Gauhati recorded in favour of the revenue in WP(C) NO. 2884 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, 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.

Shri Shyam Trading Company v. Commissioner of Chhattisgarh State Tax

In favour of the assessee

Shri Shyam Trading Company (WPT No. 140 of 2021) challenged a Section 73 assessment based only on a summary show cause notice without a separate notice specifying reasons as Rule 142 requires. The High Court of Chhattisgarh on 16 July 2026 held non-compliance with Section 73 and Rule 142 vitiated proceedings, quashing the assessment and summary notice with liberty for fresh lawful notice. Outcome favoured the assessee. Chhattisgarh aligns with broader jurisprudence distinguishing DRC-01 summaries from substantive Section 73(1) notices. Trading assessees receiving bare summaries should raise statutory objections early. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-16, High Court of Chhattisgarh recorded in favour of the assessee in WPT NO. 140 OF 2021. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST Rules R.142. 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.

N.N. Wires and Steels (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

N.N. Wires and Steels (P.) Ltd. (WPT No. 109 of 2021) succeeded on remand directions before the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 16 July 2026. A Section 74 show cause notice did not disclose specific reasons and relied-on documents were not supplied, denying meaningful opportunity under Sections 74, 79, and 83. Recovery and bank attachment founded on the defective notice were unsustainable. The court quashed consequential coercive steps and required fresh notice with specific reasons and document supply. Outcome: assessee favoured with remand. Reinforces document transparency and reasoned SCNs in fraud-track proceedings. Chartered accountants advising on DGGI or state fraud notices should verify annexures and reasons at inception. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-16, High Court of Chhattisgarh recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WPT NO. 109 OF 2021. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.74, CGST S.79, CGST S.83. 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.

Flower City Restaurant v. State Tax Officer

In favour of the assessee

Flower City Restaurant approached the High Court of Kerala (WP(C) No. 24188 of 2026) against a consolidated show-cause notice and a composite order-in-original for multiple financial years relating to tax or input tax credit, without allegation of fraud. Decided on 16 July 2026 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, the court held such clubbed proceedings invalid. Both the consolidated notice and the composite order were quashed, with liberty to the State Tax Officer to initiate fresh, year-specific proceedings. The judgment aligns with the growing High Court consensus that composite assessment in standard Section 73 matters cannot substitute separate adjudication for each period. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Informational summary only; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-16, High Court of Kerala recorded in favour of the assessee in WP(C) NO. 24188 OF 2026. 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.

Madhu Sudan Periwal v. State of Bihar

In favour of the revenue

Madhu Sudan Periwal, a medicine trader, failed to file returns for 2020-21 and was assessed for tax and late fee after show cause notice. The High Court of Patna (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8387 of 2026, 15 July 2026) upheld demand of late fee through assessment under Section 73 read with Section 47 of the CGST Act as a statutory mandate. The writ challenging the department’s competence to recover late fee in such proceedings was dismissed as devoid of merit. Outcome favoured the revenue. For return-defaulters, late fee under Section 47 remains enforceable alongside tax determination in Section 73 adjudication. Assessees should file belated returns and fee payments promptly to limit exposure. Informational; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-15, High Court of Patna recorded in favour of the revenue in CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 8387 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST S.47. 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.

Rajat Dalmia v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue

In favour of the assessee

Rajat Dalmia (W.P.A. No. 1031 of 2026) succeeded before the High Court of Calcutta on 9 July 2026 against West Bengal GST proceedings. Form GST DRC-01 omitted date, time, and venue for personal hearing and marked those fields as not applicable, effectively denying hearing under Sections 73 and 75 read with Rule 142. Assessment and demands founded on the defective notice were vitiated and set aside with liberty for fresh proceedings after proper hearing opportunity. Outcome favoured the assessee. Portal-generated DRC-01 templates must not leave hearing slots blank where adverse action is proposed. Procedural rigour protects assessees at the show-cause stage. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-09, High Court of Calcutta recorded in favour of the assessee in W.P.A. NO. 1031 OF 2026. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.73, CGST S.75, CGST Rules R.142. 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.

Sanat Kumar Hazra v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Howrah and Kadamtala Charge

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

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.

Phoenix Medical Syatems (P.) Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

In favour of the assessee

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.

P. Venkataramaniah & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner ST

In favour of the assessee

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.

WFB Baird and Company India (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer I

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

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.

Shree Ganesh Infra v. State of U.P

In favour of the assessee

Shree Ganesh Infra (Writ Tax No. 1728 of 2025) quashed demand proceedings before the High Court of Allahabad on 7 July 2026. After GST registration cancellation and business discontinuance, show cause notice was served only by upload on the GST portal; Section 169 service mechanics could not oblige a cancelled registrant to monitor the portal. Service breached natural justice under Sections 73, 75, and 169. The demand order fell with the defective notice. Outcome favoured the assessee. Cancelled registrants remain persons under law but portal-only service post-cancellation is risky for department. Alternative service modes may be required. Informational; not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-07, High Court of Allahabad recorded in favour of the assessee in WRIT TAX NO. 1728 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.75, CGST S.73, CGST S.169. 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.

Parsam Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Parsam Traders (Writ Petition No. 2577 of 2023) obtained relief from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati on 6 July 2026. The Assistant Commissioner passed a common assessment order for 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 under CGST and APGST, clubbing periods contrary to established Division Bench precedent. The court set aside the composite and related unsigned orders without merits examination, directed separate notices per period, and required the petitioner to deposit 20% of disputed tax within eight weeks given the 2022 assessment date. Outcome favoured the assessee on procedure. Unsigned orders and composite periods remain fatal flaws in this forum. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-07-06, the High Court recorded as recorded in the order in the writ petition. Central provisions engaged included 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.

Clear Secured Service (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

Clear Secured Service (P.) Ltd. (Madras High Court, WP 23402 of 2026, 1 July 2026, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.) had input tax credit reversed following Section 73 show cause tied to supplier whose registration was later cancelled. Assessee produced bank statements, tax invoices, e-way bills, ledgers and GSTR-2A/2B reconciliations under Section 16 eligibility principles. Adjudicating authority reversed ITC solely due to supplier cancellation without evaluating documentary proof or granting opportunity to adduce further evidence (Sections 74 and 75 procedural fairness). Order unsustainable; set aside with direction for fresh adjudication considering entire record. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded. Recipient ITC defences require merit review beyond supplier status changes. Not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.