TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
I had an occasion to go through one case law decided on 02/02/2026 by the Madras High Court in the matter of M/s. Ratna Cafe Rep. by its Partner, Mr. Lokesh Gupta Versus The Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Triplicane Division, Chennai, Branch Manager, Chennai - 2026 (2) TMI 650 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. This prompted me to share some of my thoughts on why the GST officer is so curious to declare the entire nation that he violates several requirements under the GST Laws by passing an order which is ultimately liable to be set aside at a later date. Let us examine them one by one for the benefit of all the readers and also as an attempt to avoid such errors in future by the concerned tax officials.
Section 73 (2): It has already been held on 17/01/2026 itself by the Bombay High Court in A.M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi through its authorized signatory and Director Ms. Suchishree Mukherjee W/o Sandeep Kunte Versus The Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and ors. - 2026 (1) TMI 1454 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT that section 73 (2) is mandatory and a minimum period of three months is required for passing the adjudication order from the date of show cause notice. Contrary to this stand of the High Court, adjudication order was passed under section 73 on 26/07/2024 itself against the show cause notice dated 21/05/2024, much in advance than the required period. It may be noted that dispute pertains to financial year 2019-20 for which SCN could be issued up to 31/05/2024 and order to be passed not later than 31/08/2024. The learned assistant commissioner confirms all concerned that he is not aware of this requirement.
Section 75 (4): It is a basic and fundamental requirement based on the principles of natural justice that personal hearing is required. The learned assistant commissioner is a quasi - judicial officer who has to ensure that 75 (4) is not violated by ensuring that the show cause notice has been effectively communicated to the taxpayer. However, despite the fact that the show cause notice was not replied, the learned assistant commissioner passed the adjudication order without ensuring the requirement for personal hearing. It may incidentally be noted that whenever any case is challenged in the jurisdictional high court by way of writ on passing of order without proper personal hearing, the courts mostly remand the case by either setting aside or quashing the adjudication order.
Bank attachment: Section 83 has been wrongly invoked on the overdraft account of the taxpayer. The bank did not have the money belonging to the taxpayer whereas money was due to the bank from the taxpayer. Even without ascertaining the nature of bank account, the attachment orders were issued on 29/01/2026. The taxpayer was not aware of the issuance of show cause notice dated 21/05/2024 as well as the order in original passed on 26/07/2024. The learned assistant commissioner did not bother about the above background and simply attached the overdraft account of the taxpayer. It is only when the bank refused further transactions of the taxpayer based on GST officer communication, the taxpayer came to know of huge tax demands.
Under the above backdrops, the taxpayer filed a writ petition before the jurisdictional high court and the court observed in para 11 as follows:
11. Following the consistent view taken by this Court under similar circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the impugned Order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the first Respondent before the Appellate Authority/Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeals) Chennai 600 034 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, subject to the Petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax as confirmed vide the impugned Order.
The order of the high court gives us lot of inputs at a crucial time when we have only less than three months to approach GSTAT by way of appeal. All tax professionals all over India may kindly take stock of all cases of their clients by verifying the adjudication orders passed but unnoticed as on date (IF ANY) by immediately visiting the GST Portal. It is high time to file appeal under section 107 in case sufficient time is available for filing first appeal and in case the time limit of 3 plus 1 month is already lapsed, to file writ in jurisdictional high court based on the above Ratna Cafe case to seek the required remedy in all deserving cases.
In my view, readers may verify all orders passed by adjudication officers during 2025 and 2026 and prefer writ in deserving cases so as to take full advantage of the GSTAT. I appeal to all GST officials across all over India to pass adjudication orders in such a manner that the orders are not remanded back to them for re-adjudication as the same only increases your work load without any additional tax collections. Moreover, as GSTAT is expected to be fully functional soon, it is possible that many cases may reach GSTAT in future and accordingly, only reasoned orders passed by GST officers adhering to the provisions of GST Law shall be protected by GSTAT as all other appeals are mostly likely to be allowed in favour of the taxpayer.