TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... direction quashing the Impugned Order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Respondent, pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2025, under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 imposing an unwarranted liability of Rs. 26,72,64,197/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Crore Seventy-Two Lakh Sixty-Four Thousand One Hundred and Ninety-Seven Only) upon the Petitioner; and b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside all consequential proceedings taken in furtherance of the Impugned Order dated 31.12.2025; and c. Pending disposal of the captioned Petition, restrain the Respondent from taking any coercive steps against the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ays. 7. Pursuant thereto, a Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2025 ["SCN"] came to be issued alleging failure to discharge tax liability and proposing a demand of Rs. 58,02,79,384/-, while calling upon the petitioner to furnish its reply within thirty days and to appear for personal hearing on 28.10.2025. 8. According to the petitioner, on 16.10.2025, it sought adjournment of the scheduled personal hearing by a period of ten days. It is further stated that the petitioner, nevertheless, proceeded to file its reply to the SCN on 24.10.2025, along with relevant supporting documents, while reiterating its request for deferment of the personal hearing. 9. However, on 27.12.2025, the petitioner received an email from the respondent issuing R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted to be based on discrepancies in e-way bills and invoices, which are attributable to suppliers/transporters and not to the petitioner, who had otherwise fulfilled the statutory conditions for availment of input tax credit. 15. It is contended that the alleged discrepancies could have been clarified had adequate opportunity been granted, and the liability has been imposed in undue haste. 16. It is further submitted that the respondent failed to comply with Sections 66(4), 75(4), and 75(5) of the CGST/DGST Act, by denying a meaningful opportunity of hearing and reasonable adjournment. The OIO has been passed mechanically to meet the limitation period under Section 73(10) of the Act. 17. Without prejudice to the above, it is put....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that a Reminder dated 27.12.2025 was issued, seeking certain documents and fixing personal hearing, pursuant to which the petitioner sought adjournment on 29.12.2025, but nevertheless appeared through its authorized representative on 30.12.2025 and 31.12.2025 and also filed an additional reply on 31.12.2025. 23. It is contended that mere proximity between the date of hearing and the passing of the order does not vitiate the same. 24. With regard to the allegation of issuance of multiple SCNs, Ms. Gupta submits that the notices dated 04.07.2025 and 24.09.2025 are distinct and independent, pertaining to different transactions, periods, and grounds, the latter having been triggered by a Special Audit. It is further submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en reasonably procured and furnished within such a truncated timeline. The petitioner, in fact, sought a short adjournment of seven days on 29.12.2025. The record does not indicate that the said request was duly considered. 30. Though it is the stand of the respondent that the petitioner participated in the personal hearing on 30.12.2025 and 31.12.2025, mere participation cannot be constructed as compliance with the requirement of affording a fair and effective opportunity. The opportunity contemplated under Sections 66(4) and 75(4) of the CGST/DGST Act is not a mere formality but must be real, reasonable and effective. 31. The timeline, as notice hereinabove, clearly demonstrates that the opportunity afforded to the petitioner was il....