AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The officials posted at adjudication level are expected to have strong knowledge on the provisions of the GST Laws and the OIO passed by them should stand the test of appeal at any higher forum and up to Supreme Court. However, even after setting up of the GSTAT benches, OIOs passed by various officers are continued to be quashed due to non-adherence of even the basis requirements under the respective laws.
We have earlier covered cases where section 73 or 74 was wrongly invoked for the tax period commencing after 01/04/2024 which is simply impermissible. The CBIC must issue at least a warning to the officers who are not even aware of the Section Number under which proceedings have to be initiated. I had an occasion to come across three different cases wherein SCN reply date is later than the personal hearing date, order being passed without affording personal hearing as well as confirming demand on sale of land which is outside the purview of the GST. Luckily, in all the three cases, the writs were disposed in favor of the taxpayer without any adverse criticism on the tax officials and not even cost is imposed.
It is high time for taxpayers to avoid writ remedy to the maximum extent possible as the efficacious alternate remedy is already in place now as GSTAT is accepting the second appeals online. However, writ before jurisdictional high court is still a good remedy even today in deserving cases such as the three cases being discussed hereunder. In all the three cases, high courts have allowed the writs despite the availability of alternate appeal remedy.
Case one : Personal hearing date before last date for submission of reply to SCN. The division bench of Uttarakhand High Court headed by the Chief Justice on 03/06/2026 in WP MD 450 of 2026 in the matter of M/s Star Medical Stor Versus The Assistant Commissioner State Goods & Service Tax - 2026 (6) TMI 392 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT observed that the personal hearing date was 18 days prior to the deadline date for submission of reply to the SCN. This mechanical serving of notices with total non-application of mind makes the personal hearing as illusory. The counsel for the respondent did not have any submissions to make and he fairly agreed with the counsel of the petitioner. Para 4 which is the operative portion reads as 'Accordingly, the Assessment Order is, hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Officer to proceed from the stage of show cause notice, after fixing a date for personal hearing'.
Comments: DRC 01 was issued on 22/05/2024 and DRC 07 was issued on 21/08/2024. The respective due dates for the above seems to be 31/05/2024 and 31/08/2024. It is presumed that the particular officer might have had several other cases as well to be handled within the above two deadline dates of May 2024 and August 2024 which forced him to send notices mechanically. The simplest solution to avoid this kind of pressures on GST officials who err in their work which leads to writs in high court is to increase the basic exemption limit to 40,00,000 for services and 80,00,000 for goods. The reforms that took place during September 2025 did not affect GST Collection till date and similarly, revenue on GST may even go up if threshold limits are enhanced as the quality of adjudication also improves and focus may be on high value cases.
Case two: Principles of natural justice: This is really an interesting case. SCN was issued. Three personal hearing dates were also offered. As taxpayer did not reply to SCN as well as did not appear on stipulated dates, OIO was passed on 22/09/2025. The time limit for first appeal was also crossed. However, the taxpayer suffered as his bank account was attached. The writ was preferred only on 02/04/2026 with an application for condonation of delay. The high court allowed the writ on 24/04/2026 up on the condition that the taxpayer must remit 25% of disputed tax within 30 days from the date of order. Vinayaga Dye Stampings case before Madras High Court in Vinayaga Die Stamping Versus State Tax Officer, Chennai - 2026 (6) TMI 386 - MADRAS HIGH COURT.
Comments: Despite the personal hearing being offered and despite appeal not being filed in stipulated time, the high court entertained the writ only based on the principles of natural justice. The court also ordered that the bank attachment may be lifted up on pre deposit of 25%.
Case three: Confirmation of GST on sale of land: Sale of land is outside the purview of GST. However, based on information gathered from form 26AS of the taxpayer, SCN was issued to verify the data. The GST officer insisted on a copy of the respective sale deed being filed with him. As this was not done, despite the fact that the officer is aware that this transaction does not attract GST, the demand as per SCN was confirmed and the order was passed on 04/09/2024 pertaining to the financial year 2021-22. The taxpayer preferred rectification under section 161 which was also rejected. Left with no option, the taxpayer, R A R Retail and Infra LLP preferred a writ in M/s. R.A.R Retail and Infra LLP Versus State Tax Officer - 2026 (6) TMI 385 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and the high court on 08/04/2026 allowed the writ as GST is not attracted on sale of land. The case was remitted to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration.
Comments: There was no order to cost. No adverse comments against the erring tax official who has passed orders confirming GST on sale of land.
Conclusion: The quasi- judicial officials handling GST matters all over India may focus on quality of the adjudication proceedings to ensure that bogus as well as frivolous GST demands are not raised which are most likely to be set aside by a higher forum at a later date.