GST - Case Laws

❯

❯❯

0 / 200

Expand Note

Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Open Link

Case Laws

All› GST

Showing Results for :

Reset Filters

Results Found:

Page of 92

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

1 to 20 of 1822 Results

ShowAI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote

2026 (8) TMI 75 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Valid GST service requires effective notice; uploading show-cause notices and orders solely on the Common Portal is insufficient.
Uploading a show-cause notice and adjudication order solely on the GST Common Portal does not constitute valid service where the statutory framework does not expressly authorise the Portal to replace formal communication. The retrospective amendment on functions performed through the Common Portal and the CGST Rules limit its use to specified functions, without treating mere uploading as valid service of notices or orders. Portal-based communication that causes serious civil consequences without effective notice is impermissible. The assessee must receive an opportunity of hearing before adjudication.

2026 (7) TMI 1602 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: (i) Whether uploading a show-cause notice or order-in-original only in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST Common Portal constitutes valid service under Sections 146 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) What consequential relief is available where proceedings or appeals were affected by such portal-only service.

Issue (i): Whether uploading a show-cause notice or order-in-original only in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST Common Portal constitutes valid service under Sections 146 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 169 permits service by making a communication available on the Common Portal, but Section 146 requires the Government to notify that portal for specified functions or other prescribed purposes. The notifications issued under Section 146 notified the relevant portals for registration, tax payment, returns, settlement of integrated tax, e-way bills and e-invoicing; none notified www.gst.gov.in for service of show-cause notices or orders. Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 also did not prescribe portal-uploading as a mode for service of such notices or orders. An e-mail merely intimating that a document has been uploaded, without transmitting the notice or order itself, is not service by e-mail under Section 169(1)(c). The inaccessible and inconspicuous placement of communications on the portal further militates against treating such uploading as effective statutory service.

Conclusion: Mere uploading of a show-cause notice or order-in-original on the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab is not valid service and does not, by itself, trigger statutory consequences against the assessee.

Issue (ii): What consequential relief is available where proceedings or appeals were affected by such portal-only service.

Analysis: Where an assessee neither acknowledged receipt of the portal-uploaded show-cause notice nor filed a reply, an ex parte adjudication founded on that notice cannot stand and the matter must return to the show-cause notice stage with an opportunity to respond and be heard. Where an order-in-original was passed after contest but was served only through portal-uploading, the limitation for appeal was not triggered. However, where the assessee had responded to the show-cause notice and contested the proceedings, defective service cannot be invoked to invalidate the adjudication solely on that ground, consistently with Section 160(2).

Conclusion: Ex parte proceedings based solely on an unacknowledged portal-uploaded show-cause notice are restored to the notice stage; appeals rejected as time-barred due to portal-only service are restored for merits adjudication; and assessees may file replies or appeals within four weeks, as applicable. These directions are in favour of the assessee, subject to the exception for matters already contested on merits.

Final Conclusion: Portal-based communication can produce legal consequences only when it conforms to the statutory framework for service or where the recipient has acted upon it; otherwise, the affected assessee must receive an effective opportunity to contest the demand or pursue appellate remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Common Portal has not been notified or prescribed for service of notices and orders, mere uploading of such communications on the portal, without actual transmission by a statutorily valid mode or acknowledgment and participation by the assessee, is not valid service under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

GST portal-only notice service is invalid unless statutorily notified, preserving responses and appellate remedies for affected assessees.
Portal-only uploading of GST show-cause notices or orders in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab is not valid service where the Common Portal has not been notified or prescribed for that purpose. Section 169 permits portal-based service only within the framework of Section 146 and applicable rules; an email merely alerting the assessee to an upload is not service by email. Ex parte adjudication based on an unacknowledged uploaded notice must return to the notice stage, and appeal limitation does not begin from portal-only service of an order. However, an assessee who replied and contested proceedings cannot invalidate adjudication solely for defective service.

Service of GST notices and orders through Common Portal - Electronic service by e-mail - Defect in service of notice acted upon by assessee - Ex Parte Adjudication - Principles of Natural Justice - Actual Knowledge and Waiver of Defective Service - Statutory Procedure Must Be Strictly Followed Service of GST notices and orders through Common Portal - HELD THAT: - Undisputedly, though multiple modes of service of order are available with the Department, but the impugned order-in-original is served upon the petitioner only by way of uploading it on the tab ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’ on the Common Portal. Law is well-settled that when a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner alone, and not in any other manner. The Common Portal could be used for service only if notified for that purpose under the statutory scheme. The notifications issued under the provision creating the Common Portal notified www.gst.gov.in for specified functions, but not for service of notices or orders; nor did the Rules prescribe such uploading as a mode of service. Further, the portal interface did not provide reasonable or prominent disclosure of statutory communications. Consequently, uploading in the additional-notices tab was not authorised service and could not trigger limitation for an appeal. [Paras 45, 48, 49, 56, 60] Ex parte adjudications founded on notices uploaded alone were restored to the show-cause notice stage for reply and hearing; where an order passed after contest had been uploaded alone, the assessee was permitted to appeal within four weeks, and time-barred appeals were restored for decision on merits. Electronic service by e-mail - HELD THAT: - Service by e-mail requires the notice or order itself to be sent to the registered e-mail address. An intimation without the statutory communication or its contents could not be treated as service through e-mail. [Paras 30, 45] The Revenue could not rely on the e-mail intimation as a valid mode of service. Defect in service of notice acted upon by assessee - A defect in portal-based service could not invalidate proceedings where the assessee had responded to the show-cause notice and contested the matter. - HELD THAT: - Where the assessee had acted upon the show-cause notice by filing a reply and the order-in-original was passed after contest, the defect in service could not subsequently be invoked to challenge the order merely because the notice or order had been uploaded on the Common Portal. [Paras 59] Cases in which the show-cause notice had been contested were excluded from relief founded solely on defective service. Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by holding that mere uploading of statutory communications in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab was not valid service. Consequential relief was granted according to whether the proceedings had been ex parte, the order had been contested, or the appeal had been dismissed as time-barred.

2026 (6) TMI 1495 - MADRAS HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under section 74 of the GST enactments could be initiated and sustained where the notice and related material disclosed the basis for invoking the extended period and the jurisdictional facts; (ii) whether the impugned show cause notices and assessment orders were liable to be quashed or interfered with on the ground of absence of foundational facts, pre-determination, or limitation.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under section 74 of the GST enactments could be initiated and sustained where the notice and related material disclosed the basis for invoking the extended period and the jurisdictional facts.

Analysis: The legal framework under sections 73 and 74 of the GST enactments was treated as a self-assessment regime in which the proper officer may proceed when it appears, on the available records or on material gathered in scrutiny, audit, special audit, inspection, or search, that tax has not been paid, short-paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised. The Court held that jurisdictional facts are required, but they may be reflected not only in the show cause notice itself but also in earlier statutory stages such as ASMT-10, DRC-01A, ADT-02, ADT-04, or INS-02. It further held that a bare reliance on older indirect tax jurisprudence cannot control the GST scheme, because the GST provisions and Rules form a distinct code and use the expression "where it appears" to denote a prima facie threshold rather than a higher "reason to believe" standard.

Conclusion: Proceedings under section 74 are sustainable where the material discloses the basis for invoking the provision, and the absence of a repeated recital of reasons in the notice does not by itself vitiate the proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned show cause notices and assessment orders were liable to be quashed or interfered with on the ground of absence of foundational facts, pre-determination, or limitation.

Analysis: The Court distinguished cases where notices were merely mechanical or unsupported from cases where the record already contained the relevant factual basis. It held that where the inspection, scrutiny, audit, or notice trail disclosed the alleged ineligible input tax credit or other defects, the proceedings could not be treated as premature or without jurisdiction merely because the taxpayer disputed the merits. On the petition-specific outcomes, the show cause notices in the Fastenex matters and the Turbo Energy matter were not quashed; the petitions were disposed of with directions to file replies and for the authorities to adjudicate in accordance with law. In the Ispahani Estates matters, the assessment orders were not wholly annulled on the jurisdictional objection; the matters were remitted for fresh consideration, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law and to invoke section 74 if warranted on the material. The Court also held that the petitions where the notices/orders were supported by the statutory record and the petitioners were only raising merits were liable to be rejected.

Conclusion: The writ challenges based on absence of foundational facts, predetermination, and limitation were rejected in substance, subject to petition-wise procedural directions, including disposal with liberty to reply and remand for fresh adjudication in appropriate matters.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the GST authorities' power to proceed under section 74 on the basis of prima facie material and statutory antecedents, while granting only limited procedural relief in some matters through directions to file replies or have the matters reconsidered on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the GST demand scheme, the expression "where it appears to the proper officer" requires only a prima facie, record-based basis supported by jurisdictional facts, and the presence of such material in the statutory proceedings is sufficient to sustain initiation under section 74 even if the show cause notice does not independently restate every reason verbatim.

Section 74 GST demands require prima facie record-based jurisdictional facts, not repeated reasons in every show cause notice.
Section 74 of the GST enactments permits demand proceedings where prima facie, record-based material establishes jurisdictional facts concerning unpaid or short-paid tax, erroneous refunds, or wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit. The factual basis may emerge from statutory antecedents, including scrutiny, audit, inspection, or communications such as ASMT-10, DRC-01A, ADT-02, ADT-04 and INS-02; it need not be repeated verbatim in the show cause notice. The expression "where it appears to the proper officer" denotes a prima facie threshold rather than a "reason to believe" standard. Challenges alleging absence of foundational facts, predetermination or limitation fail where the statutory record supports initiation, although procedural relief may include time to reply or fresh merits adjudication.

Scope of invocation of extended period of limitation by the Proper Officer - Jurisdictional or foundational facts for show cause notice - Meaning of the expression "where it appears" - Prior communication of grounds in GST proceedings - Conversion of proceedings from fraud-based demand to non-fraud demand - Different time limits specified in Section 73 and Section 74 - Concept of sub silentio - Expression “Due Process of Law” - Distinction between “Jurisdictional Fact or the Foundational Fact” and the “Adjudicatory Fact” - mandate of Principles of Natural Justice incorporated in Section 73 or Section 74 - Jurisdiction of the proper officer under Section 74 to issue Show Cause Notices and to pass orders - Whether the “Proper Officer” namely the contesting Respondent(s) in the respective Writ Petition was/were justified in invoking Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments against each of the Petitioners in the facts of the respective cases. Distinction between “Jurisdictional Fact or the Foundational Fact” and the “Adjudicatory Fact” - A “Jurisdictional Fact” is a fact which must exist before an Authority can assume jurisdiction over a particular issue. The existence of such facts is a sine qua non for the Courts or the Tribunal or the Adjudicatory Authority, to assume jurisdiction over a particular dispute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar & others Vs. Union of India & others [2006 (9) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT], explained the distinction between the “Jurisdictional Fact” and “Adjudicatory Fact”. It held that “Adjudicatory Fact” is something that is required to be decided on merits based on evidence to be produced/adduced by both the parties. However, it reiterated that the existence of “Jurisdictional Fact” was a sine qua non for an authority to exercise Jurisdiction. Extended limitation under GST - Foundational facts for fraud-based demand - Communication of reasons - HELD THAT: - In Oryx Fisheries Pvt Ltd.[2010 (10) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the purpose of a Show Cause Notice is to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur [1988 (9) TMI 314 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “it was observed that “Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. This rule has ever since been followed. One of the chief reasons for the doctrine of precedent is that a matter that has once been fully argued and decided should not be allowed to be reopened. The weight accorded to dicta varies with the type of dictum. Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all. Not every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement, having the weight of authority.” In Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. Chemphar Drugs And Liniments, Hyderabad [1989 (2) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed whether in a particular set of facts and circumstances there was any Fraud or Collusion or Wilful Mis-statement or Suppression of Facts or contravention of any provision of any Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Thus, the invocation of machinery under Proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were not justified, if an assessee entertained a bona fide belief or the tax was paid on the basis of the Approved Classification or Price List or in absence of any indication that there was deliberate attempt to evade duty. Unless there was a deliberate attempt to evade tax, no question of invoking the extended period of limitation could be countenanced. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the phrase “Procedure Established by Law” was adopted Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, no person shall be deprived of personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The said phrase “Procedure Established by Law” was borrowed from Article 31 of the Japanese Constitution. A conjoint reading of the phrase “where it appears” along with the phrase “by reason of” employed in Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments and the phrase “where it appears” with the phrase “for any reason other than the reason of” in Section 73 of the respective GST Enactments, before the words “Fraud, Wilful-Mis-statement, Suppression of Facts to evade tax” would indicate that only recording a prima facie view before issuing a Notice is sufficient while exercising the power under Section 73(1) and Section 74(1) of the respective GST Enactments. Both Section 73 and 74 of the respective GST Enactments, do not expressly mandate “recording of reasons” before issuance of Notice, as compared to Section 148(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood up to 01.04.2021, or thereafter, under Section 148A(b)/148A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 01.04.2021. A separate mechanism has been provided in the case of “Nonfilers of Returns” and “Unregistered Persons”. The machinery for such provisions is under Section 62 and Section 63 of the respective GST Enactments. They start with a non-obstante clause “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 73 or Section 74 or Section 74A”. This is a departure from the Scheme under the Central Indirect Tax Regimes, namely, Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994, which have been subsumed in the respective GST Enactments. The Court held that the expression "where it appears" in Sections 73 and 74 of the GST enactments sets a lower threshold than the older indirect tax regimes and requires only a rational prima facie view founded on available records or information. Even so, existence of jurisdictional or foundational facts remains necessary. Ordinarily, a notice under Section 74 should state the reasons for invoking the extended period and the mental elements alleged; however, such reasons need not be restated in the notice if they had already been communicated in the course of scrutiny, audit, special audit, inspection or pre-notice intimation through the prescribed forms. Mere absence of elaborate reasons in the notice is therefore not fatal where the materials and grounds were already conveyed earlier, but if neither the earlier proceedings nor the notice disclose the basis for invoking Section 74, the proceedings cannot be sustained in that form. The Court also held that a notice validly issued under Section 74 may, where the allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression are not established, be directed to be treated as proceedings under Section 73. [Paras 820, 821, 823, 824, 829] Section 74 can be invoked on the basis of a prima facie view drawn from disclosed materials, and prior communication of grounds in the statutory process is sufficient compliance; only where such foundational facts are absent would invocation of Section 74 be arbitrary. Show cause notice under Section 74 - Pre-determination objection - Classification of nuts - Validity of the show cause notices issued to the manufacturer for the tax periods 2021-2022 to 2024-2025 under Section 74, challenged as reflecting pre-determination and as lacking jurisdictional basis - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the impugned notices were preceded by inspection and by intimation in Form GST DRC-01A setting out the defects noticed, including non-cooperation during inspection, non-production of records and the allegation that the goods were taxed at a lower rate though treated by the department as automotive parts. In the statutory GST scheme, a detailed notice containing proposals does not by itself establish pre-meditation. The notices were held to be proposals calling for response and not concluded determinations. The Court distinguished the authorities relied on for the plea of pre-judgment and held that, under the GST enactments and rules, reasons may be communicated through the earlier stages of proceedings and need not be treated as invalid merely because the notice is detailed. Questions on the correct rate and classification were left to be urged by reply before the authority. [Paras 844, 845, 846, 847, 848] The challenge to the show cause notices failed; the petitions were dismissed and the authority was directed to decide the matter on merits after considering the petitioner's reply. Excess input tax credit mismatch - Fraud-based demand notice - Detailed allegations in show cause notice - The validity of the show cause notice issued to the taxpayer for 2020-2021 to 2022-2023 under Section 74 on the basis of excess input tax credit reflected by mismatch and related irregularities - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the impugned notice specifically stated the reasons for invoking Section 74, namely excess availment of input tax credit in GSTR-3B with reference to invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A or GSTR-2B, invoices where the supplier had not discharged tax, double availment, non-reversal relating to credit notes, and availment under the wrong head. In view of these detailed allegations, the Court rejected the contention that jurisdictional or foundational facts were absent. The earlier decision relied on by the petitioner was held inapplicable because, in the present case, the notice itself contained the basis for invoking the extended period and alleging suppression. The merits of entitlement to credit were left open for adjudication on reply. [Paras 855, 856, 857, 858, 859] The challenge to the notice was rejected, and the petitioner was directed to file a detailed reply, after which the authority was to adjudicate on merits with personal hearing. Wrongly availed input tax credit for real estate renting activity - Inadequate particulars for invoking extended limitation - Conversion to non-fraud proceedings - Validity of the assessment orders passed under Section 74 against the real estate taxpayer for Apr 2019-Mar 2020, Apr 2021-Mar 2022 and Apr 2022-Mar 2023 on the allegation of ineligible input tax credit contrary to the notification governing real estate services - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the show cause notices and orders did not clearly particularise the basis on which the petitioner's input tax credit was treated as wrongly availed with reference to the relevant notification, nor did they adequately set out the particulars justifying invocation of the extended period under Section 74. At the same time, the Court rejected the plea that the matter was barred by limitation under Section 73, having regard to the applicable extension of time. Since the proceedings had been initiated in time, the defect did not warrant abatement. The Court therefore remitted the matters to the authority to pass fresh orders on merits under Section 73, treating the impugned orders as addenda for that purpose, and observed that if the petitioner still failed to furnish the details called for, it would remain open to the authority to pass appropriate orders under Section 74. [Paras 869, 870, 873, 874, 875] The assessment orders under Section 74 were not sustained in their existing form; the matters were remitted for fresh consideration under Section 73, without foreclosing recourse to Section 74 if the petitioner failed to furnish the required particulars. Final Conclusion: The Court held that invocation of Section 74 under the GST enactments depends on a prima facie appearance of non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund or wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit founded on available material, and that prior communication of the grounds in the statutory process is sufficient. On that basis, the challenges to the show cause notices in the Fastenex and Turbo matters were rejected, while the assessment orders in the Ispahani matters were remitted for fresh consideration under Section 73, without ruling out recourse to Section 74 if the petitioner failed to furnish the required particulars.

2026 (6) TMI 750 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

GST registration cancellation for return non-filing may be reversed when all dues and consequential charges are paid.
GST registration cancelled solely for continuous non-filing of returns may be restored where no fraud or unlawful activity is alleged and the taxpayer undertakes to clear outstanding tax, interest, late fees and penalties. Financial difficulty and non-compliance proximate to the Covid-19 pandemic supported restoration. The registration was to be restored after the authorities determine the outstanding dues and the taxpayer pays the intimated amount within the stipulated period.

2026 (6) TMI 576 - GAUHATI HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Consolidated GST notices and orders across financial years are permissible under Sections 73 and 74, with severable valid periods
A consolidated show cause notice and consolidated order covering different financial years are permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act because Chapter XV does not prohibit clubbing of periods, and the provisions mainly regulate jurisdiction and time limits. References to notices and statements for "such periods" support a common proceeding across multiple years. The Court distinguished assessment under Chapter XII from adjudication under Sections 73 and 74, and applied severability so that time-barred periods do not invalidate the valid periods. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed.

Jurisdiction to issue a consolidated show cause notice and pass a consolidated order covering more than one financial year under Sections 73 and 74 - Proper officer - Financial year-wise limitation in GST tax determination - Severability of multi-year tax demands - Doctrine of severability - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Sections 73(1) and 74(1) create jurisdiction to initiate determination of tax where the statutory conditions exist, and neither provision restricts the notice to a single financial year. The limitation provisions in Sections 73(2), 73(10), 74(2) and 74(10) operate financial year-wise only for the purpose of timeliness of notice and order, and not as a bar against a common notice or common adjudication. The scheme of Sections 73(3) and 74(3), which permits a statement for other periods on the same grounds and deems it to be notice, also indicates legislative acceptance of proceedings spanning multiple periods. The Court rejected the contention that proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 are merely part of assessment; it held that the Act distinguishes assessment under Chapter XII from adversarial adjudication under Chapter XV, which includes determination of tax, interest and penalty, and in Section 74 also involves fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression. The Court further held that if any year included in a consolidated notice is time-barred, the proceeding is not wholly void; since each financial year constitutes a distinct cause of action, barred periods can be separated by applying the doctrine of severability. On that reasoning, the consolidated notices and orders impugned in the three writ petitions were within jurisdiction. [Paras 68, 69, 70, 72, 73] The jurisdictional challenge failed; consolidated show cause notices and consolidated orders for multiple financial years under Sections 73 and 74 were held legally permissible, and the petitioners were relegated to their statutory appellate remedies. Final Conclusion: The Court held that neither Section 73 nor Section 74 bars a consolidated show cause notice or a consolidated adjudication order covering multiple financial years, so long as limitation is satisfied separately for each period. The writ petitions were therefore disposed of by relegating the petitioners to the statutory appellate remedies, with protection against limitation and continuation of interim relief till consideration of their stay applications if appeals are filed within the permitted time.

2026 (5) TMI 1822 - Supreme CourtGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: (i) Whether online gaming, fantasy sports and casino transactions involving stakes on uncertain outcomes constitute betting and gambling for GST purposes; (ii) whether actionable claims arising from betting and gambling are includible within "goods" and taxable as supplies under the GST framework; (iii) whether the amount staked forms consideration and whether Rule 31A, Rule 31B and Rule 31C are valid valuation provisions; (iv) whether the 2023 amendments are clarificatory and retrospective; and (v) how the pending notices, writ petitions and connected appeals are to be disposed of.

Issue (i): Whether online gaming, fantasy sports and casino transactions involving stakes on uncertain outcomes constitute betting and gambling for GST purposes?

Analysis: The statutory and constitutional meaning of betting and gambling was held to turn on the staking of money or money's worth on an uncertain outcome. The medium of play, including digital platforms, was treated as immaterial. The distinction between skill and chance was held to lose significance once stakes were placed on uncertain outcomes, unless a statute expressly protected skill-based play from the consequences of staking. Fantasy sports and online gaming contests with pooled stakes were held to fall within this concept, and casino transactions were treated as plainly within it.

Conclusion: Yes. Online gaming, fantasy sports and casino transactions involving stakes on uncertain outcomes constitute betting and gambling for GST purposes.

Issue (ii): Whether actionable claims arising from betting and gambling are includible within "goods" and taxable as supplies under the GST framework?

Analysis: The Court held that Article 246A provides the constitutional source for GST and that the levy is on supply, not on betting and gambling as a freestanding activity. Section 2(52) was held to validly include actionable claims within goods, relying on the inclusive constitutional conception of goods and the earlier recognition that actionable claims are movable property in the wider sense. Entry 6 of Schedule III was construed as preserving taxability for actionable claims arising from lottery, betting and gambling. The challenge based on Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 265 was rejected.

Conclusion: Actionable claims arising from betting and gambling are validly included within goods and are taxable as supplies under the GST framework.

Issue (iii): Whether the amount staked forms consideration and whether Rule 31A, Rule 31B and Rule 31C are valid valuation provisions?

Analysis: The Court held that the stake amount bears a direct and inseparable nexus with the supply and constitutes consideration under Section 2(31). It further held that valuation under Section 15 is not confined to net revenue or commission and that the legislature has wide latitude in adopting a reasonable measure for tax. Rule 31A was upheld as a valid machinery provision traceable to Sections 15 and 164, and Rule 31B and Rule 31C were also upheld as valid special valuation mechanisms. The Court rejected the contention that the rules were confined to horse racing or that they were manifestly arbitrary.

Conclusion: The stake amount is consideration, and Rule 31A, Rule 31B and Rule 31C are valid valuation provisions.

Issue (iv): Whether the 2023 amendments are clarificatory and retrospective?

Analysis: The Court held that the 2023 amendments did not create a fresh levy or a new taxable event. They were treated as clarificatory, explanatory and operational, introduced to remove doubts and provide greater specificity in the valuation and collection framework for online gaming and casino transactions. Their retrospective operation was upheld on that basis.

Conclusion: The 2023 amendments are clarificatory and operate retrospectively.

Issue (v): How are the pending notices, writ petitions and connected appeals to be disposed of?

Analysis: The writ petitions and transferred cases challenging the levy, valuation framework and notices were dismissed. The Revenue's civil appeals were allowed and the Karnataka High Court judgment quashing the notices was set aside, with the notices restored for adjudication. The criminal appeal was allowed to the extent indicated. The appeal concerning licence/permission was disposed of with a direction for consideration by the competent authority.

Conclusion: The levy was upheld, the writ petitions were dismissed, the Revenue's appeals succeeded, and the connected matters were disposed of in the manner stated.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upholds the GST levy on actionable claims arising from betting, gambling, online gaming, fantasy sports and casinos, validates the charging and valuation machinery, and directs the pending proceedings to continue in accordance with the declared principles, while granting limited relief only in the licence-related appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where money or money's worth is staked on an uncertain outcome, the transaction constitutes betting and gambling for GST purposes, and the resulting actionable-claim supply is taxable as goods under the GST framework with valuation governed by the statutory rules framed under the Act.

Betting and gambling under GST includes staked online gaming and fantasy sports, with taxable actionable claims and valid valuation rules.
Money or money's worth staked on an uncertain outcome was held to constitute betting and gambling for GST purposes, regardless of whether the activity occurs through online platforms, fantasy sports contests or casinos. Actionable claims arising from such transactions were held to be validly included within "goods" and taxable as supplies under the GST framework. The stake amount was held to be consideration, and Rules 31A, 31B and 31C were upheld as valid valuation provisions. The 2023 amendments were treated as clarificatory and retrospective, and the pending writ petitions, notices and connected appeals were disposed of accordingly.

GST on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling - Games of skill played with stakes as betting and gambling - Actionable claims as goods under the GST framework - Supply of actionable claims in online gaming and fantasy sports - Valuation of betting and gambling transactions - Validity of Rule 31A, Rule 31B and Rule 31C - Clarificatory and retrospective operation of the 2023 GST amendments - Constitutional limits of legislative and delegated fiscal powers, the scope and operation of the GST framework, and the manner in which traditional legal doctrines are to be applied to technology-driven commercial activities. Whether activities conducted on online gaming platforms, casinos, betting platforms and allied establishments constitute taxable supplies of actionable claims arising from betting and gambling arrangements ? - HELD THAT: - In Junglee Games [2026 (5) TMI 1821 - SUPREME COURT] this Court, after undertaking an exhaustive examination of the expressions "betting” and "gambling”, the constitutional framework governing Entry 34 of List II and the relevant judicial precedents including RMDC-I, RMDC-II, K.R. Lakshmanan [1996 (1) TMI 336 - SUPREME COURT] and Satyanarayana [1967 (11) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT], held that "betting” and "gambling” constitute a composite and interchangeable expression referring to the act of staking money or money’s worth upon uncertain outcomes. This Court expressly rejected the interpretation that Entry 34 ought to be read as "betting on gambling”, holding that such construction would be contrary to the constitutional scheme as revealed by the substantive constitutional provisions as well as the legislative heads specified in the entries in the Seventh Schedule thereto. Most significantly, this Court clarified that the determinative factor in betting and gambling is the staking of money upon uncertain outcomes irrespective of whether the underlying activity involves skill, chance or a combination of both. The distinction between games of skill and games of chance becomes relevant only where a statute expressly protects games of skill irrespective of the involvement of stakes. In the absence of such statutory protection, staking upon uncertain outcomes retains the character of betting and gambling. The Court further clarified that the medium, through which the activity is conducted, whether online or offline, is immaterial, since the essential character of the transaction lies in the staking arrangement itself and not in the technological medium through which it is facilitated. Notably, the Court also distinguished between an ‘entry fee’ paid merely to secure participation in a genuine skill-based competition and a ‘stake’ placed upon an uncertain outcome. It was held that in a genuine skill-based competition, the entry fee merely confers a right to participate and is not linked to the uncertain outcome or prize pool. Conversely, in gambling adventures or chance-based competitions, the so-called entry fee itself constitutes the stake amount, since it is paid upon an uncertain outcome and the prize money is intrinsically linked to the pooled stake amounts. Applying the principles stated in the connected judgment on betting and gambling, the Court held that the determinative element is the staking of money or money's worth on an uncertain outcome, and not whether the underlying activity is one of skill or chance. Once participation in the game is conditioned on stakes and the participant stands to gain more depending on an uncertain result, the transaction acquires the character of betting and gambling. The same principle applies to online gaming and fantasy sports, notwithstanding the technological medium or the presence of elements of skill. [Paras 49, 84] Online gaming, including fantasy sports, when played for stakes, is betting and gambling under the GST framework. Actionable claims as goods under the GST framework - Legislative competence under Article 246A - Constitutional validity of levy on actionable claims - HELD THAT: - Before the advent of GST, the exclusive power to levy tax on betting and gambling vested with the States. Such activities were kept outside the ambit of service tax imposed by the Union under the Finance Act, 1994. Section 66D(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 expressly placed "betting, gambling or lottery” within the negative list of services, thereby excluding such activities from the levy of service tax under Section 66B. It is no doubt true that actionable claims were historically treated as distinct from conventional goods under legislations such as the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. However, such treatment arose within entirely different statutory and juristic contexts governing contracts of sale and transfer of property. The constitutional validity of the GST framework cannot be determined solely by importing rigid classifications evolved under pre-GST commercial legislations enacted for altogether different purposes. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Sunrise Associates [2006 (4) TMI 118 - SUPREME COURT], assumes significance. The Constitution Bench expressly recognised that actionable claims constitute movable property and "goods” in the wider sense of the term, though historically excluded from the ambit of sales tax legislations by specific statutory exclusion. The Court observed that were actionable claims not otherwise comprehended within the wider conception of goods, there would have been no necessity for their express exclusion under sales tax statutes. The Court held that Article 246A confers wide legislative power to enact GST laws and that the taxable event under GST is supply. Article 366(12) is inclusive and does not freeze the meaning of goods to pre-GST commercial classifications. In light of the statutory framework and the decisions recognising actionable claims as movable property capable of being treated as goods, Sections 2(52) and 9(1) validly include and tax actionable claims arising from betting and gambling. The levy is on supply of such actionable claims and not a direct tax on betting and gambling as an activity simpliciter. The challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 265 was rejected, the Court holding that mere commercial hardship or higher tax incidence does not invalidate fiscal legislation otherwise within competence. [Paras 50, 84] Once the legislative competence underlying the levy, taxable event and valuation framework is sustained, the Rules framed thereunder, including Rules 31A, 31B and 31C of the CGST Rules, cannot independently be invalidated merely by reiterating the same constitutional challenge directed against the parent levy itself. The validity of such delegated legislation thereafter falls to be examined within the settled parameters governing subordinate legislation, including manifest arbitrariness, inconsistency with the parent enactment, excessive delegation or lack of statutory authority. Those aspects shall be dealt with separately in the subsequent part of this judgment. No constitutional infirmity is otherwise made out so as to warrant interference in exercise of judicial review. The impugned Rules are therefore not liable to be struck down on the constitutional grounds urged against the parent levy and statutory framework. Sections 2(52) and 9(1), read with the GST scheme taxing actionable claims arising from betting and gambling, were upheld as constitutionally valid. Supply of actionable claims beyond transfer of pre-existing claims - Organised betting and gambling arrangements as taxable supply - HELD THAT: - The GST regime therefore taxes supplies and not merely traditional transfers of title or conventional sale transactions. Consequently, once actionable claims are expressly included within the definition of "goods”, the expression "supply” under Section 7 must necessarily receive a purposive and expansive interpretation consistent with the constitutional and statutory architecture of GST. Any other restrictive construction would defeat the very architecture of GST and render the levy incapable of addressing modern commercial transactions which do not conform to traditional forms of transfer. The Court held that GST is a supply-centric regime and Section 7 uses broad and inclusive language. Therefore, taxability is not limited to assignment or transfer of an already existing actionable claim. Once the organised gaming or betting structure gives rise to contingent beneficial interests in movable property upon participation, those interests fall within actionable claims and their supply is taxable under Section 7 read with Entry 6 of Schedule III. The procedural requirements governing transfer of actionable claims under the Transfer of Property Act are not bodily imported into the GST framework. [Paras 51, 52, 84] Supply of actionable claims under GST includes organised betting and gambling structures in which such claims arise, even without transfer of a pre-existing claim. Consideration for betting and gambling supplies - Stake amount as transaction value - Valuation of betting and gambling transactions - HELD THAT: - In betting and gambling transactions, the stake amount is paid for the very purpose of participation in the organised betting and gambling framework and for acquisition of the corresponding actionable-claim interest arising therein. Even if, at a particular stage prior to participation crystallising, the amount may retain certain attributes of a refundable deposit, the character of such payment fundamentally changes once the participant is admitted into the betting or gaming arrangement and the amount stands appropriated towards participation in the underlying supply. Upon such appropriation, the payment ceases to retain the character of a mere deposit and forms part of the consideration for the supply involving actionable claims. The Court held that the definition of consideration in Section 2(31) is of wide import and covers payment made in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of supply. Participation in betting and gambling is impossible without payment of the stake amount; hence the stake is neither collateral nor incidental but integral to the supply. Once appropriated towards participation, the amount ceases to be a mere deposit and becomes consideration for the supply. There is no statutory basis for deducting winnings, prize pools or payouts from the taxable value, and the statutory measure may validly adopt the full amount entering the betting and gambling framework. [Paras 53, 84] The full stake amount appropriated towards participation constitutes consideration and enters the valuation mechanism under Section 15. Validity of Rule 31A - Delegated valuation machinery for betting and gambling - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Rule 31A does not create a new levy or enlarge the charging section but only operationalises the valuation framework inhering in Sections 9 and 15 read with Entry 6 of Schedule III. The rule is traceable to Sections 15(4), 15(5) and 164, and the materials on record showed that it was backed by GST Council recommendations. The prescription of 100% of the face value of the bet as the measure of valuation bears a direct nexus with the taxable supply and is not manifestly arbitrary merely because another valuation method may also be conceivable. Rule 31A is not confined to horse racing; the use of the disjunctive expression covers betting and gambling generally, and the expression "chance to win" refers to the actionable-claim interest supplied, not only to games of chance. [Paras 58, 59, 64, 65, 84] Rule 31A was upheld as a valid valuation and machinery provision applicable to actionable claims arising from betting and gambling. Clarificatory and retrospective operation of the 2023 GST amendments - Validity of Rule 31B and Rule 31C - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the pre-amendment regime already taxed actionable claims arising from betting and gambling and that the 2023 amendments did not create a fresh levy or a new taxable event. They were introduced to provide greater statutory specificity and operational clarity for online gaming, online money gaming and casino transactions, and to refine and standardise valuation in those ecosystems. Rules 31B and 31C were held to be valid machinery provisions with a rational nexus to the taxable supply and not violative of Article 14. Since the amendments merely clarify and systematise the existing law, they were held to be retrospective in operation in the manner indicated in the judgment. [Paras 66, 67, 84] The 2023 amendments and Rules 31B and 31C were upheld as clarificatory, valid and retrospectively applicable. Supply of actionable claims in online gaming and fantasy sports - Online gaming operators as suppliers - Rule 31B valuation - HELD THAT: - The Court held that when players place stakes, an identifiable pooled fund of movable property comes into existence and each participant acquires a contingent beneficial interest therein. The players do not retain actual or constructive possession over the staked amounts once those amounts are committed to gameplay, and the platform controls deposits, gameplay, outcome determination and disbursal. There is no independent inter se supply between players; the platform creates, structures and administers the entire ecosystem and therefore itself supplies the actionable-claim interest. Fantasy sports were placed on the same footing because the amounts paid are not mere access fees but pooled stakes appropriated towards contingent prize structures dependent on uncertain future outcomes. Consequently, valuation of such transactions is governed by Rule 31B, including in pending proceedings. [Paras 72, 73, 74, 79, 84] Online gaming and fantasy sports operators were held to be suppliers of actionable claims, and valuation is to be governed by Rule 31B. Casino transactions under the GST framework - Best judgment valuation - Rule 31C valuation - HELD THAT: - The Court rejected the contention that GST in casino operations is leviable only on gross gaming revenue or net retained earnings, holding that GST is a tax on taxable supply and not on profits. The amount paid for participation in casino gaming enters the taxable framework irrespective of the ultimate profitability or loss of the casino, and chips or tokens are merely the medium through which bets are placed. The Court upheld the Department's authority to resort to Rule 31 and reconstruction or best judgment methodologies where complete contemporaneous records were absent. At the same time, because Rule 31C was held to be clarificatory and retrospective, the actual determination and computation of taxable value in casino cases must be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority in accordance with Rule 31C, leaving factual and computational objections open. [Paras 82, 83, 84] The challenge to taxability and to the use of best judgment methods failed, but casino valuation and computation were directed to be redetermined in accordance with Rule 31C. Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the GST levy on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling transactions, including online gaming and fantasy sports played with stakes, and sustained the constitutional and statutory validity of the relevant provisions and rules. The 2023 amendments and Rules 31B and 31C were held clarificatory and retrospective; pending show cause notices and proceedings were directed to be decided accordingly, with casino valuation to be recomputed under Rule 31C. The Karnataka High Court judgment quashing the show cause notices was set aside, the writ petitions and transferred cases were dismissed, and the criminal appeal was allowed to the limited extent indicated.

2026 (5) TMI 158 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

GST assessment service through portal upload requires meaningful opportunity to respond before fresh adjudication.
Assessment under the GST regime based only on portal-uploaded notices and order was found vulnerable where the taxpayer was denied a meaningful opportunity to respond. The Court balanced portal-based service against practical access difficulties and the requirement of natural justice, holding that procedural fairness required a proper hearing before fresh adjudication. The impugned assessment order was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration after due opportunity to the petitioner, subject to payment of 20% of the disputed tax within the stipulated period.

2026 (5) TMI 125 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: Whether a consolidated or common show cause notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can validly cover multiple financial years or multiple tax periods.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 distinguishes between "tax period", "financial year", "such period", and cases where no period is specified. The provisions governing returns, self-assessment, scrutiny, audit, special audit, inspection, search and seizure, and demand and recovery show that, where the legislature intended a proceeding to be confined to a particular period, it said so expressly. Sections 73 and 74 use the expression "any period" for issuance of notice, and the reference to financial year in the limitation provisions does not restrict the scope of the notice itself. The linkage to financial year in the time limit for passing the order is only a reference point for limitation and does not make the proceeding financial year-specific. The language of sub-sections enabling statements for "such periods" beyond the notice period also supports a wider construction. The prescribed form for show cause notice does not alter the substantive scope of the power, and the entries relating to tax period are not mandatory. Concerns about pecuniary jurisdiction and the coexistence of fraud and non-fraud components do not invalidate a composite notice, since limitation and adjudication safeguards continue to apply period-wise.

Conclusion: Consolidated or common show cause notices under Sections 73 and 74 covering multiple financial years or multiple tax periods are permissible and valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned notices failed, the orders of the learned Single Judge were set aside, and the Revenue's position was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permit a notice to cover any period, and the reference to financial year in the limitation provision does not impose a substantive restriction that confines the notice to a single financial year.

Common show cause notices under GST may cover multiple tax periods, with financial year references operating only for limitation.
Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act are explained as permitting a common show cause notice for multiple tax periods or financial years, because the statute uses the expression "any period" for notice issuance. The reference to financial year in the limitation provision is treated as only a time-limit reference point, not a restriction that confines the notice to one financial year. The prescribed notice form is also said not to control the substantive scope of the power, and its tax-period entries are described as non-mandatory. On that basis, a composite notice can validly cover both fraud and non-fraud components, while limitation and adjudication safeguards continue to apply period-wise.

Validity of the common/consolidated show cause notices issued under Section 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘the Act’) covering more than one tax period or financial years - fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts - Interpretation of "any period" under Sections 73 and 74 - Limitation under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) - monetary limit based on the tax demand proposed for issuance of show cause notice under Sub-Section (1) of Sections 73 and 74 of the Act - Pecuniary jurisdiction of proper officer. Consolidated show cause notice - HELD THAT: - On an analysis of the scheme of the Act, the Court held that the expressions used across the statute such as "tax period", "financial year", "such period", and, in Sections 73 and 74, "any period", are used deliberately and in different contexts. The provisions relating to returns, annual returns and assessment may be structured with reference to tax periods or financial years, but proceedings for determination of tax under Sections 73 and 74 are default-specific and constitute a complete mechanism for demand and recovery. The reference to financial year in sub-section (10) of those sections is only a legislative reference point for limitation and does not restrict the power to issue notice under sub-section (1). The Court further held that sub-sections (3) and (4), which permit service of statements for periods other than those covered in the earlier notice, negate the contention that the proceedings must be financial year-specific. The prescribed form DRC-01 also did not support the assessees' contention, since the tax-period particulars in the form were not mandatory. Accordingly, reading Sections 73 and 74 as confined to one financial year would amount to rewriting the statute and rendering parts of the provision otiose. [Paras 33, 34, 35, 43, 57] A common or consolidated show cause notice covering more than one tax period or financial year is permissible under Sections 73 and 74. Fraud and non-fraud proceedings - HELD THAT: - The Court rejected the contention that inclusion of multiple periods in a notice under Section 74 would automatically extend limitation for periods which may, on facts, fall under Section 73. It held that invocation of the extended period under Section 74 is not automatic and depends upon a determination that fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts is established. Unless those statutory conditions are made out, the limitation applicable would remain that under Section 73(10). The statutory scheme therefore preserves the assessee's protection on limitation, even where the notice is consolidated. [Paras 36, 37] A consolidated notice does not enlarge limitation merely because it is issued under Section 74; each component of the demand remains governed by the limitation applicable on the facts found. Pecuniary jurisdiction - Proper officer - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the relevant circular itself provides a mechanism for determining jurisdiction on the basis of the total amount involved in the proceedings and for transfer to the competent officer if the pecuniary limits change by reason of subsequent statements. Since adjudication would still be by the proper officer having requisite jurisdiction, no prejudice is caused merely because clubbing of periods may place the matter before an officer of higher rank. An assessee has no right to choose the adjudicating authority. [Paras 38, 39, 40, 41] The objection founded on pecuniary jurisdiction was rejected. Period-wise limitation - Time-barred component of demand - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the protection under sub-section (10) of Sections 73 and 74 is not lost because a single notice covers more than one period. Each component period included in the notice has to independently satisfy the statutory test of limitation. If any part of the notice pertains to a period beyond limitation, that part alone would be liable to be excluded as time-barred; the consolidated form of notice does not by itself defeat the defence of limitation. [Paras 42] A consolidated notice is valid, but every period covered by it remains separately open to challenge on limitation. Appellate remedy against Order-in-Original - Exclusion of limitation prejudice - HELD THAT: - In the appeals where the writ petitions had challenged not only the show cause notices but also the Orders-in-Original, the Court restored the legal position by holding the consolidated notices permissible. At the same time, since the respondents had pursued writ proceedings and the appellate authority had limited power to condone delay, the Court protected them by granting six weeks' time to file appeals and directing that the plea of limitation should not be raised if the appeals were filed within that period. In one matter, the show cause notice as well as the Order-in-Original were restored, while preserving the respondent's right to pursue appeal within the time so granted. [Paras 62, 63, 64, 65] The impugned writ orders were set aside; show cause notices were restored, and in the cases involving Orders-in-Original the respondents were given time to file statutory appeals without objection on limitation if filed within the period granted. Final Conclusion: The Court held that Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act do not prohibit issuance of a common or consolidated show cause notice for multiple tax periods or financial years. The orders of the learned Single Judge quashing such notices were set aside, the writ petitions were dismissed, the notices were restored, and in matters where Orders-in-Original were involved, time was granted to pursue statutory appeals without objection on limitation if filed within the period specified by the Court.

2026 (4) TMI 1218 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Consolidated GST show-cause notices over multiple years may not be barred by adjudication-order limitation; Larger Bench reference follows.
Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act were analysed on whether a consolidated show-cause notice may cover multiple financial years. The Court noted that the provisions use the expressions "for any period" and "for such periods", while sub-sections 73(10) and 74(10) prescribe the time limit for passing the final adjudication order. It held that the limitation for the final order does not, by itself, bar issuance of a consolidated notice. Owing to conflicting High Court views and the effect of the Supreme Court's order in Mathur Polymers, the questions were referred to a Larger Bench, with interim orders continued.

Reference to Larger Bench - Conflict of precedent - Consolidated show cause notice - Sections 73 and 74 adjudication scheme Reference to Larger Bench - Conflict of precedent - Consolidated show cause notice - Sections 73 and 74 adjudication scheme - The challenge to single consolidated show-cause notices covering multiple financial years under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act required consideration by a Larger Bench in view of conflicting judicial views and the legal questions arising from the statutory scheme. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that, although a co-ordinate Bench decision in Milroc Good Earth Developers [2025 (10) TMI 867 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] would ordinarily bind it, substantial legal issues raised by the Revenue, including the effect of the language in Sections 73(1), 73(3), 74(1) and 74(3), the distinction between issuance of notice and the limitation for passing orders under Sections 73(10) and 74(10), and the impact of the Supreme Court's speaking order in Mathur Polymers [2025 (11) TMI 1184 - SC ORDER], warranted examination by a Larger Bench. On a prima facie reading, the Court found that Sections 73 and 74 form a self-contained adjudicatory code; that the expressions referring to notice for any period and for such periods indicate no apparent statutory embargo against a consolidated notice for different periods; and that the limitation for passing the adjudication order does not, by itself, operate as a limitation on issuance of show-cause notice. In view of the cleavage of opinion between Milroc Good Earth Developers and the contrary views of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, the Court framed specific questions of law for authoritative determination and directed that existing interim orders should continue until the Larger Bench decides those questions. [Paras 28, 29, 30, 31, 32] The matters were referred for constitution of a Larger Bench to decide the framed questions of law, and the interim orders already operating were directed to continue till such decision. Final Conclusion: The Court did not finally decide the validity of consolidated show-cause notices for multiple financial years. Holding that the statutory issue was affected by conflicting judicial views and required authoritative resolution, it referred the framed questions to a Larger Bench and continued the existing interim protection.

2026 (4) TMI 781 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

GST registration cancellation requires reasoned consideration of taxpayer explanation and natural justice before civil consequences follow
GST registration cancellation based on an alleged absence of business activity at the registered premises was held unsustainable where the taxpayer had explained that operations were only temporarily non-operational due to the proprietor's serious illness. The show-cause notices and consequential orders failed to deal with that explanation and gave no effective reasons or meaningful discussion. Because cancellation of registration has civil consequences, the authority was required to apply its mind and observe natural justice. The cancellation order and the refusal to revoke registration were quashed, and GST registration was restored.

Cancellation of GST registration - rejection of the revocation application - failure to consider the petitioner's explanation and for want of reasons in the show-cause notices - Vague show-cause notice - Non-application of mind - Principles of natural justice. Cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT:- The Court held that the matter was a genuine case in which the petitioner's explanation for temporary discontinuance of business was not considered at all. It found that neither the show-cause notices nor the impugned orders contained any discussion or reasoning, and that the orders were passed mechanically in a standardised manner without application of mind. Applying the consistent view of this Court, including Makersburry India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2023 (10) TMI 792 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Monit Trading Private Limited v. Union of India [2023 (7) TMI 911 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan v. Union of India [2023 (9) TMI 1176 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the Court reiterated that a show-cause notice proposing cancellation of registration must set out adequate reasons enabling an effective reply, and an order passed on a vague notice or without dealing with the assessee's case is arbitrary and violative of natural justice. On that basis, the notices and consequential orders were quashed, with restoration of registration, while leaving it open to the department to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law on a properly reasoned notice and after granting opportunity of hearing. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] The impugned show-cause notices and consequential orders cancelling registration and rejecting revocation were set aside, the registration stood restored, and liberty was reserved to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Final Conclusion: The Court quashed the show-cause notices and consequential orders cancelling the GST registration and rejecting revocation, holding them to be arbitrary and unsupported by reasons. The petitioner's registration stood restored, while preserving the respondents' liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

2026 (4) TMI 665 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

GST refund rejection fails where the service agreement and export-of-services character are not properly examined.
Refund rejections under the GST regime may not be sustained where the appellate authority does not examine the governing service agreement or record findings on whether the supply is an export of services or an intermediary service. The text notes that, in relation to IGST refund claims on ship management services, the absence of findings on the contractual terms and the true character of the supply meant the orders could not stand. The impugned refund rejection orders were quashed, and the matters were remanded for de novo consideration and fresh orders after hearing the parties.

Rejection of refund claims under the GST regime - contractual terms governing the service arrangement - characterisation of the supply as Export of services Or Intermediary services - applicability of Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 - Zero-Rated Supplies - Failure to consider material terms of agreement. Failure to consider material terms of agreement - Intermediary services - Export of services - HELD THAT: - This Bench in Vistex Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.[2026 (1) TMI 1066 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], wherein in similar circumstances considering the nature of the clauses in the agreement and the decision of this Court in Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd.[2025 (6) TMI 1259 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], this Court allowed the petition, whereby the order as impugned therein, of rejecting the refund, as upheld by the Appellate Authority, was quashed and set aside and the proceedings were remanded to the Appellate Authority. The Court found substance in the petitioner's grievance that the appellate authority had not examined the agreement under which the services were rendered, although that agreement was foundational to deciding whether the supplies qualified as export of services or were liable to be treated as intermediary services. As no finding was recorded on the terms of the agreement in the context of the nature of services for which refund was claimed, and similar matters had been dealt with by this Court by requiring such examination, the impugned appellate orders could not be sustained. The proper course was to remit the matters for a de novo consideration after hearing the parties, while keeping all contentions open. [Paras 7, 9, 11] The impugned appellate orders were quashed and the refund proceedings were remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Final Conclusion: The Court held that the appellate authority had failed to examine the governing agreement and record findings on the true nature of the services before rejecting the refund claims. The appellate orders were therefore set aside and the matters remanded for fresh consideration, with all contentions kept open.

2026 (3) TMI 1308 - GAUHATI HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

GST registration cancellation can be reversed after filing pending returns and paying dues under the CGST Rules.
GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns may be restored where the taxpayer files all pending returns and pays the tax dues, interest and late fee as required under Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The proviso to sub-rule (4) allows the proper officer to drop cancellation proceedings on compliance with the prescribed conditions. Where the record shows that pending returns have been furnished and the requisite payments made, the registration can be considered for restoration on verification and in accordance with law.

2026 (3) TMI 1044 - TELANGANA HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Reliance on Originals limited-adjudication may proceed on available records while preserving right to copies, replies and hearing.
Adjudication under the GST scheme may proceed using available materials while explicitly excluding reliance on seized original files that are missing from departmental custody; scanned copies and other available records must be furnished to the taxpayer. The State's undertaking not to rely on unavailable originals forms the operative basis for continuation, and the taxpayer retains the procedural rights to receive copies of materials, file supplementary replies and attend hearings to secure a fair adjudication. The process is permitted to continue on that limited evidentiary basis, preserving the taxpayer's opportunity to be heard.

2026 (3) TMI 898 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Input Tax Credit time bar extension via retrospective amendment permits delayed claims filed within the extended window; factual eligibility remains for authority review.
The text examines the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) which, as a non obstante provision, overrides the time restriction in Section 16(4) to permit claiming input tax credit for specified financial years up to 30.11.2021; it notes related administrative instruments clarifying implementation. The discussion focuses on legal permissibility of belated ITC claims where returns were filed within the extended window and distinguishes legal entitlement questions from factual eligibility, which is to be examined by the tax authority.

Seeking of refund of statutory pre-deposit made u/s 107(6) - retrospective amendment - time limit for availing input tax credit - remittal for factual verification. Effect of Section 16(5) on the time-limit for claiming input tax credit for the specified financial years - HELD THAT:- The Court held that Section 16(5), inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017 and stating 'notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (4)', operates to extend and relax the time-limit prescribed under Section 16(4) in respect of invoices/debit notes pertaining to the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. In consequence, a return filed within the extended period permitted by Section 16(5) is not barred on the ground of the time-limit under Section 16(4). The Court relied on the legislative amendment and the administrative clarification to conclude that permissibility of claiming ITC is governed by the extended cut-off under Section 16(5). [Paras 5, 6] Claims of input tax credit for the specified financial years are not barred by Section 16(4) where the claim falls within the extended period under Section 16(5). Remand for factual determination of eligibility for input tax credit - HELD THAT:- The Court set aside the impugned orders insofar as they denied ITC solely on the ground of the time-bar and remitted the matter to the assessing authority for consideration of factual eligibility. The authority is empowered to examine and decide the factual aspects of entitlement to ITC but is not permitted to re-open the legal conclusion that claims within the extended period under Section 16(5) are permissible. Other contentions were left open for adjudication by the authority. [Paras 7, 8] Impugned orders set aside on the time-bar ground and the matter remitted to the assessing authority for factual adjudication of eligibility to claim ITC. Final Conclusion: The Court held that Section 16(5) retrospectively extends and overrides the time-limit in Section 16(4) for the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21, disallowed denial of ITC solely on the basis of the earlier time-bar, set aside the impugned orders on that ground and remitted the matter to the assessing authority to examine factual eligibility for the claimed input tax credit.

2026 (3) TMI 404 - GAUHATI HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Restoration of GST registration on compliance with Rule 22(4) proviso; authorities must consider and restore within directed time.
Petitioner may seek restoration of GST registration by complying with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules: furnish all pending returns, pay outstanding tax plus applicable interest and late fee, and file Form GST REG-20; on such compliance the cancellation proceedings under Section 29(2)(c) shall be dropped and the registration considered for restoration. The Court applied the statutory scheme and Coordinate Bench precedent and directed that authorities, on receipt of a compliant application, take necessary steps to restore registration in accordance with law within the time framed by the Court.

Entitlement to approach the concerned CGST authority for restoration of GST registration - payment of tax interest and late fee - compliance with the requirements of the proviso to Rule 22(4). Cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns - HELD THAT:- The Court accepted that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on the ground of non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. Relying on the proviso to sub rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and on the Coordinate Bench's decision in Pankaj Mohan [2025 (12) TMI 1452 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] (and the cases relied upon therein), the Court held that where a person served with a show cause notice is willing to furnish all pending returns and make full payment of tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer may drop cancellation proceedings and pass the prescribed order for restoration in Form GST REG-20. The Court did not adjudicate the underlying merits of the cancellation but directed that the petitioner be permitted to approach the concerned authority with an application for restoration and compliance with the proviso. The authority is to consider the application in accordance with law and take necessary steps for restoration if the requirements of the proviso are met. The direction is temporal and procedural: the petitioner must approach within the period fixed by the Court and the authority must consider and act within the stipulated timeframe. [Paras 10, 11, 12] Petitioner permitted to apply for restoration of GST registration by complying with the proviso to Rule 22(4); the concerned authority shall consider the application in accordance with law and take necessary steps for restoration if requirements are satisfied. Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to apply for restoration of GST registration after compliance with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017; the concerned authority is directed to consider and decide the application in accordance with law within the timeframe fixed by the Court.

2026 (3) TMI 578 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Refund claim review required where authority failed to address contractual, intermediary and IGST Act applicability; remand for fresh adjudication ordered.
The authority's rejection of a refund claim was set aside because it failed to adequately consider the petitioner's contractual arrangements, the applicability of Section 13(8) of the IGST Act and relevant circulars and precedents, and issues of intermediary characterisation and export-of-services treatment; accordingly the impugned order is quashed and the matter remitted to Respondent No.2 for de novo consideration after hearing the parties, with all contentions kept open and a fresh decision to be rendered within three months.

2026 (3) TMI 835 - Supreme CourtGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

GST registration cancellation notices must generally be contested through statutory proceedings, not pre-emptive writ petitions seeking quashing.
Writ jurisdiction ordinarily cannot be invoked to pre-empt or quash a show cause notice proposing cancellation of GST registration. Challenges to such notices must generally be pursued through the statutory adjudicatory process, even where prior communications, investigation activity, or a request for interim protection against coercive measures preceded the notice. The stated position treats the show cause notice as requiring a response in the prescribed proceedings rather than warranting pre-emptive writ relief.

2026 (3) TMI 573 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: (i) Whether registration under the CGST/HGST Act can be cancelled with retrospective effect despite the show cause notice not proposing retrospective cancellation; (ii) Whether proceedings are vitiated where supportive documents stated to be attached to the show cause notice were not supplied to the taxpayer; (iii) Whether cancellation orders that are cryptic and non-speaking are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether retrospective cancellation of GST registration may be effected where the show cause notice does not propose retrospective cancellation.

Analysis: Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 confers a power to cancel registration, including from a retrospective date, subject to the contingencies listed therein. The statutory scheme and subordinate rules (notably Rule 22) require that the affected person be put on notice and afforded opportunity of hearing. Established principles of fair procedure require that a show cause notice disclose the grounds and the nature of the proposed action so that the person can meet the case against them. Retrospective cancellation has significant consequences and therefore the order exercising such power must reflect consideration of facts and reasons; retrospective effect cannot be mechanically or routinely applied without reasons shown in the order and notice.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation is permissible in law but may not be validly imposed unless the show cause notice clearly proposes it and the order records reasons demonstrating application of mind; in the present matters retrospective cancellation effected without such proposal or reasons is unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of supportive documents, which were stated in the show cause notice to be attached, vitiates the proceedings.

Analysis: Rule 22 and the principles of natural justice require that material relied upon in initiating cancellation proceedings be made available so that the taxpayer can effectively respond. Where the show cause notice expressly refers to attached supporting documents and those documents are not furnished or uploaded, the affected person is deprived of the opportunity to meet the case. The Court noted the admitted absence of such documents in these matters and that departmental reliance on materials not mentioned in the order or supplied at the show cause stage cannot cure the defect.

Conclusion: Proceedings are vitiated if supportive documents referred to in the show cause notice are not supplied to the taxpayer; failure to supply such material renders the proceedings unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether cancellation orders that are cryptic and non-speaking, lacking reasons and demonstration of application of mind, are sustainable.

Analysis: An order cancelling registration, particularly with retrospective effect, must disclose the reasons and demonstrate application of mind to the facts and material. Non-speaking, cyclostyled or cryptic orders that merely reproduce bare grounds or refer to unsupplied documents do not fulfil the statutory and procedural requirement of reasoned decision-making. Post hoc justifications by the department in replies cannot substitute for a reasoned order and cannot validate a non-speaking cancellation order.

Conclusion: Cryptic and non-speaking cancellation orders that do not record reasons and application of mind are unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the cancellation orders are allowed; the impugned show cause notices and cancellation orders are set aside to the extent they effect retrospective cancellation without proper proposal, supply of supporting material and reasoned orders; authorities may re-initiate or continue action only after affording proper notice, supplying supporting material and providing an opportunity of hearing, and by passing reasoned orders in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: While the statutory power to cancel GST registration, including with retrospective effect, exists, its exercise requires that the show cause notice disclose the proposed action (including any retrospective date) and the material relied upon, the supporting documents referred to must be supplied to the taxpayer, and the cancellation order must be reasoned and demonstrate application of mind; failure in these respects renders the cancellation unsustainable.

Retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires explicit proposal and a reasoned order; lack of supporting documents invalidates proceedings.
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration is legally available but requires the show cause notice to disclose the retrospective nature of the proposed cancellation and the order to record reasons demonstrating application of mind; retrospective effect imposed without such proposal or reasoned consideration is unsustainable. Cancellation proceedings are vitiated where documents expressly stated as attached to the show cause notice are not supplied to the taxpayer, because reliance on unsupplied materials deprives the person of an effective opportunity to be heard. Cryptic, non-speaking or cyclostyled cancellation orders that fail to state reasons likewise do not meet statutory and natural justice requirements.

Retrospective cancellation of GST registration - requirement of supply of supporting documents in show-cause proceedings - non-speaking cryptic orders vitiate cancellation proceedings - extraordinary writ jurisdiction despite alternate statutory remedy - Whether registration of petitioner(s) under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short CGST/HGST Act) could have been cancelled with retrospective effect even though it is not so proposed in show case notice(s), Form GST-REG-17, issued to petitioners. Retrospective cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT:- The Court held that although Section 29(2) of the CGST Act confers power to cancel registration from a retrospective date, the exercise of that power must be preceded by notice to the assessee of the proposal to cancel retrospectively and the reasons/material relied upon. A show cause notice must disclose the basic grounds or premises of the proposed action so that the person proceeded against has a fair opportunity to meet the case; absence of any proposal for retrospective cancellation in the notices issued rendered the subsequent retrospective effect unsustainable. [Paras 11, 13, 14, 16, 18] Impugned cancellations made effective retrospectively without any proposal or reasons in the show cause notices are set aside; authorities may, if otherwise warranted, recommence proceedings and may impose retrospective cancellation only after giving specific notice and opportunity in accordance with law. Requirement of supply of supporting documents in show-cause proceedings - HELD THAT: - The Court found that in the petitions the show cause notices referred to attached supportive documents which were not in fact uploaded or supplied to the petitioners. The absence of the material on which the authorities purportedly relied deprived petitioners of the ability to effectively contest the case, and procedural fairness required that such material be furnished prior to final adjudication. [Paras 3, 16, 18] Proceedings in which supportive documents referred to in the show cause notice were not supplied are vitiated; the cancellation orders based on such deficient procedure were quashed with liberty to reinitiate after supplying the material and affording opportunity of hearing. Non-speaking cryptic orders vitiate cancellation proceedings - HELD THAT: - The Court emphasised that orders imposing retrospective cancellation must reflect the authority's consideration of facts and reasons. The impugned orders merely reproduced brief grounds or cyclostyled language without articulating any reasoning or the material basis for retrospective effect. Post-hoc justifications in departmental replies cannot cure the absence of reasons in the orders themselves. [Paras 19, 20] Non-speaking, cryptic cancellation orders are set aside as showing non-application of mind; authorities may reconsider and pass reasoned orders after affording proper notice and hearing. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction despite alternate statutory remedy - HELD THAT: - Relying on the exception recognised in precedent, the Court held that the procedural infirmities shown - absence of specific notice for retrospective cancellation, failure to supply supportive documents, and non-speaking orders - constituted circumstances warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction despite existence of alternative remedies. The Court therefore entertained the petitions and granted relief. [Paras 21, 23] Writ petitions were entertained and allowed in view of the established procedural defects; the Court set aside the impugned orders and permitted authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Final Conclusion: The Court quashed the impugned cancellation orders and corresponding show cause notices for procedural infirmities - absence of proposal for retrospective cancellation, non-supply of supportive documents, and non-speaking orders - and permitted the revenue to reinitiate proceedings, including retrospective cancellation if justified, only after giving specific notice, supplying material relied upon and affording a reasoned hearing in accordance with law.

2026 (2) TMI 893 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Habeas corpus maintainable against unlawful GST detention where mandatory arrest safeguards and remand requirements were not complied with.
A habeas corpus petition was held maintainable against arrest and remand where the detention was alleged to be unlawful, and Article 226 jurisdiction was not barred by the existence of a statutory arrest procedure. The Court held that, under GST arrest safeguards, the Commissioner must record reasons to believe on the basis of material, while the grounds of arrest must be explained to the arrested person and furnished in writing with the arrest memo. On the facts, the disputed service of grounds, defective arrest memo compliance, and inadequate satisfaction before remand rendered the remand order illegal. The detention was therefore unsustainable, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Habeas Corpus - Power of arrest under CGST Act - Grounds of arrest - Reasons to believe - Compliance with departmental guidelines on arrest - Remand order illegality - Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 - Applicability of Satendra Kumar Antil ratio to special statutes - Maintainability of the writ petition - HELD THAT:- It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 that the petition is not maintainable since petitioner has been arrested by following procedure of law as per Section 67/69 of CGST Act. We find that such a contention raised before this Court is not apparent from record. It is settled law that if the court finds that the order of remand passed by the Magistrate is not in accordance with law. The arrest of the accused in such a case becomes illegal and the this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This view finds support from the paragraph no. 28 of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State represented by Deputy Director and others [2024 (9) TMI 1497 - SUPREME COURT] Reasons to believe - Power of arrest under CGST Act - HELD THAT:- As per the paragraph of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Radhika Agrawal [2025 (2) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] the court was required to ascertain whether the "reasons to believe" show that the arrest of petitioner has been made relying upon any credible evidence or it has been made only to investigate the suspicion against petitioner. Whether the power of arrest was used with circumspection and case was required to be ascertained by court before allowing remand application of respondents, which is not apparent from the remand order. Compliance with departmental guidelines on arrest - Remand order illegality - HELD THAT:- After the considering the fact that there is serious factual dispute about actual service of "grounds of arrest" on the petitioner before affecting his arrest since in the remand order, there is no recital that the copy of "grounds of arrest" was provided to the petitioner at the time of his arrest and before producing him before the Remand Magistrate and finding of the remand order to be not in accordance with law and also keeping in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil [2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT], we hold that the remand order suffers from legal infirmity and cannot be sustained. It is hereby set aside. This writ petition is allowed.

2026 (2) TMI 995 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURTGST

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: (i) Whether service of notices exclusively by uploading on the GST common portal, where the taxpayer's GST registration had been cancelled, amounts to valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act; (ii) Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the statutory requirement of opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act.

Issue (i): Whether portal-only service on a person whose registration was cancelled constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.

Analysis: Section 169 prescribes multiple modes of service including direct tender, registered post/courier, email, making notice available on the common portal, and affixation or publication where other modes are not practicable. Making a notice available on the portal is one permissible method but not exclusive. Where registration is cancelled, the person is not obliged to monitor the portal and reliance solely on portal uploading imposes a duty on a non-registered person inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Portal-only service in the circumstances where registration stood cancelled is not valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act; service was not effected in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned adjudication violated Section 75(4) by failing to grant an opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis: Section 75(4) mandates that an opportunity of hearing be granted where a request is received in writing or where an adverse decision is contemplated, reflecting the audi alteram partem principle and requirements of natural justice applicable to fiscal adjudications.

Conclusion: The impugned order violated Section 75(4) as the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of personal hearing; a fresh adjudication must include grant of hearing if so desired by the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication is quashed for defective service and failure to afford the statutory opportunity of hearing; the revenue is permitted to issue a fresh notice and proceed in accordance with law, ensuring valid service and compliance with Section 75(4).

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxpayer's GST registration is cancelled, service of statutory notices cannot be effected exclusively by portal upload; effective service must be effected by a mode that actually communicates the notice to the addressee, and adjudication without granting the opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) breaches the audi alteram partem rule.

Service by portal-only on cancelled GST registration invalid; fresh adjudication required with opportunity of personal hearing.
Where a taxpayer's GST registration had been cancelled, reliance solely on uploading statutory notices to the GST common portal was held not to constitute valid service under Section 169 because the statutory scheme contemplates multiple service modes and a cancelled registrant is not obliged to monitor the portal; service must in practice communicate the notice to the addressee. Separately, adjudication without granting the opportunity of personal hearing breached the audi alteram partem principle as required by Section 75(4). Consequentially the impugned adjudication was quashed and the revenue permitted to issue fresh notice and proceed with valid service and a hearing if requested.

Page of 92

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

1 to 20 of 1822 Results

Case Laws

All› GST

All Case Laws

Showing Results for :

Reset Filters

Page of 92

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

1 to 20 of 1822 Results

No Records Found

Case Laws

All Case Laws

Join Channel

Showing Results for : Reset Filters

Topics

ActsIncome Tax

➔Previous Next ➔

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Case Laws

Case Laws

Topics