SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 519

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
M/s Surya Business Private Limited - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Assam - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) no. 6666 of 2024
Decided On : 12-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A. Kanodia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Gogoi, Additional Advocate General, Assam

A show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act must be issued at least three months prior to the last date for passing an order, and the issuance date is excluded in this calculation.

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 73 - Issuance of Show Cause Notice - The petitioner challenged a show cause notice regarding excess Input Tax Credit availed, claiming it was issued after the statutory time limit mandated by Section 73 - The court analyzed the time calculation methodology as per the General Clauses Act, emphasizing that the date of issuance must be excluded from the calculation period for three months before the due date for passing an order - On such analysis, the court found the notice issued on 29.11.2024 to be timely. (Paras 3, 31, 34)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The petitioner sought to quash the notice as non-est in law, arguing the time limit had elapsed, whereas the state contended it was within statutory time. (Paras 4, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a private limited company involved in distributing cellular phones, received a show cause notice for failing to declare tax liability correctly while filing the Annual Return for the Financial Year 2020-2021. The notice claimed that excess Input Tax Credit from non-compliant dealers was availed, leading to a demand of Rs. 33,03,968/-.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the notice was issued within the statutory timeframe required under Section 73, overruling the petitioner's claims.

Issues: Whether the show cause notice issued on 29.11.2024 was within the prescribed limitation period for such notice issuance.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory requirement for issuing a show cause notice at least three months prior to the order's issuance was clarified, noting the proper exclusion of the notice date led to compliance with time limits.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner is a registered business. (Para 1)
2. challenge to show cause notice. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. arguments presented by parties. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. interpretation of timelines under cgst act. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. understanding terminus a quo and terminus ad quem. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. clarification of section 9 of general clauses act. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
7. application of corresponding date rule. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
8. court's ruling and final order. (Para 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

The petitioner herein is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and its principal place of business is at Gar Ali, Jorhat, Assam. The petitioner company is in the business of wholesale / distribution of cellular phones, etc. which comes under the purview of Chapter 85 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. For the purpose of carrying out its business, the petitioner company got itself registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [‘the CGST Act’, for short] and the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [‘the AGST Act’, for short] vide GST Registration no.18ADCS648OJ1ZX.

2. In this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assail is made to a Show Cause Notice together with a Summary in Form GST DRC–01 having reference no. ZD181124009288G dated 29.11.2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Jorhat Zone, Jorhat, Assam [the respondent no. 2].

3. The Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC–01 bearing Reference no. ZD181124009288G dated 29.11.2024 for the Financial Year : 2020-2021 has come to be issued to the petitioner company under the hand of the respondent no. 2 stating inter-alia that on examination of the information furnished in the Annual Return for the Financial Year : 2020-2021 under various heads and the information furnished in GSTR–01, GSTR–2A, GSTR–3B, EWB and other records available in the office, it has been found that the petitioner company had not declared its correct tax liability while filing the Annual Return in Form GSTR–09. It is stated that the petitioner company had availed excess Input Tax Credit [ITC] from cancelled dealers, returned defaulters and tax non-payers. By the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner has been asked to pay a total liability of Rs. 33,03,968/- [= Rs. 24,012/- (CGST) + Rs. 24,012/- (AGST) + Rs. 32,55,944/- (IGST)] along with interest and penalty under Section 73 of the CGST/AGST/IGST Act.

4. Aggrieved by the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/AGST Act, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking setting aside and quashing of the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2024.

5. I have heard Mr. A. Kanodia, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation Department for all the respondents.

6. Mr. Kanodia, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 73[1], Section 73[2], Section 73[9] and Section 73[10] of the CGST/AGST Act to contend that a Show Cause Notice under Section 73[1] has to be issued atleast three months prior to the time limit specified in Section 73[10] for issuance of an Order. By the Notification no. 40/2021 Central Tax dated 29.12.2021, the due date of filing of the Annual Return in Form GSTR-9 and the Reconciliation Statement in Form GSTR-9C for the Financial Year : 2020-2021 was extended from 31.12.2021 to 28.02.2022. He has submitted that in order to find the meaning of 'month' appearing in Section 73[2], recourse has to be taken to the definition of 'month' provided in Section 3[35] of the General Clauses Act, 1897. He has contended that in the case of the petitioner, the Show Cause Notice under Section 73 ought to have been issued by the proper officer atleast three months prior to the last date of filing of the Annual Return for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top