Facts of the Case

M/s Harihar Alloys Private Ltd. challenged a show cause notice bearing No.24/2025 TR-AC dated 21.09.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes, Trichy II Division, alleging contravention of Sections 7(2), 9 and 73 of the GST Act as well as Articles 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to quash the notice as arbitrary and lacking jurisdiction.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed at the threshold.
  2. Whether the petitioner should instead be granted additional time to file its reply on merits.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The show cause notice was arbitrary, lacked jurisdiction, and contravened Sections 7(2), 9 and 73 of the GST Acts as well as Articles 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution, and deserved to be quashed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel for the respondents defended the notice, and the Court itself observed that it was not as if the third respondent who issued the notice lacked jurisdiction.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the officer who issued the notice was not lacking in jurisdiction to do so, but taking into account the special facts and circumstances of the case, granted the petitioner four weeks from receipt of the order to file its reply.
  • All contentions of the petitioner, including on jurisdiction and constitutional validity, were left open to be raised in the reply, and the limitation for the authority to pass a final order was correspondingly extended by the same period.

Important Clarification

  • A GST show cause notice will not be quashed at the threshold merely on an assertion of lack of jurisdiction where the issuing officer is, on the face of it, competent to issue it; courts instead extend the reply timeline and let all such contentions be urged before the adjudicating authority.
  • Extension of the reply deadline correspondingly extends the authority's own timeline to pass a final order, keeping the overall adjudication schedule intact.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 – demand provision referenced in the show cause notice.
  • Section 9, CGST Act, 2017 – levy and collection provision, whose alleged contravention was cited in the notice.
  • Section 7(2), CGST Act, 2017 – scope-of-supply exclusions, also cited as contravened in the notice.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was disposed of without quashing the notice, a limited procedural accommodation (extra reply time) for the assessee rather than a ruling for either side on the jurisdiction or merits.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Case No.: W.P.(MD)No.33485 of 2025 with connected W.M.P.(MD) petitions. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan. Date of Order: 21st November, 2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.