Case Details: Golden Cryo (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 133 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
-
Dr Sujay Kantawala, Anupam Dighe, Ms Renita Alex & Ms Chandni Tanna for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an exporter, filed a refund application for accumulated ITC on zero-rated supplies without payment of tax. It was submitted that a show cause notice (SCN) was issued in Form GST RFD-08 alleging fake invoices by suppliers but granted only seven days to reply instead of the prescribed period. It submitted a preliminary reply via email and sought a personal hearing; however, the proper officer passed an order in Form GST RFD-06 on the next day rejecting the refund without issuing any hearing notice or considering the reply. It was contended that such action violated the relevant GST provisions, which mandate a fifteen-day reply period and grant of hearing before adjudication. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that under Section 54 of the CGST Act and Maharashtra GST Act read with Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, a minimum period of fifteen days must be granted to reply to a SCN, and adjudication can be undertaken only after considering such reply and granting an opportunity of hearing. It held that curtailment of the reply period to seven days rendered the notice contrary to the statutory mandate. The Court further held that the denial of a personal hearing and the failure to consider the reply violated the requirement of fair procedure embedded in Section 75. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order was quashed with a direction to issue a fresh notice.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Haren Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CST [2024] 168 taxmann.com 356 (Bom) (para 12), followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Haren Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CST [2024] 168 taxmann.com 356 (Bom) (para 5)
- Carbon Resources (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition (T) No. 3532 of 2025, dated 26-11-2025] (para 5)
- Tvl. C. Ragupathi Contractor v. Dy. CST [2026] 183 taxmann.com 556/114 GST 382 (Mad) (para 5).
The post GST Order Invalid Due to Inadequate SCN Reply Time | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
