Facts of the Case

Tata Play Ltd, a DTH broadcasting service provider registered under GSTIN 07AAGCS9294M1ZH, challenged a show cause notice dated 30.11.2024 and the consequent order dated 28.02.2025 demanding Rs. 5,63,52,147/- in tax, Rs. 4,22,64,110/- in interest and Rs. 56,35,214/- in penalty for FY 2020-21, on the ground of alleged excess Input Tax Credit availed. Tata Play raised two objections: first, that the SCN was issued beyond the three-month buffer mandated before the Section 73(10) limitation deadline; and second, that it was denied adequate opportunity of personal hearing due to a portal glitch that recorded 'No' despite it selecting 'Yes' for a personal hearing.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the SCN dated 30.11.2024 was issued within the mandatory three-month period preceding the outer limitation of 28.02.2025 under Section 73(2) read with Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.
  2. Whether Section 75(5) of the CGST Act guarantees an assessee a minimum of three opportunities of personal hearing, and whether the missed hearing here amounted to a natural-justice violation warranting interference under Article 226 despite an available appellate remedy.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner argued 'three months' should be read as calendar months from 28.02.2025, making the cut-off 28.11.2024 — so the SCN issued on 30.11.2024 was two days late and time-barred, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Himachal Techno Engineers and the Andhra Pradesh High Court's Cotton Corporation of India ruling.
  • It further argued Section 75(5) entitles an assessee to a minimum of three adjournments/hearings before an adverse order, and that a GST portal glitch wrongly recorded its hearing requests as declined, denying it a genuine hearing.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Department contended that computing backward, three calendar months from 28.02.2025 (December, January, February) works out to exactly 90 days, making 30.11.2024 the correct cut-off date and the SCN timely; it relied on Dodds v. Walker as followed in Himachal Techno Engineers for calculating calendar months.
  • It also submitted multiple hearing opportunities (17.01.2025 and 27.01.2025) had been afforded, both of which the petitioner failed to utilise, and relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs M/s Commercial Steel Limited to argue the writ should not be entertained given the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107.

Court Order / Findings

  • Applying Himachal Techno Engineers, the Court held December, January and February (31+31+28 days) together make up exactly 90 days between 30.11.2024 and 28.02.2025, so the SCN was within the mandatory three-month buffer and not time-barred — disagreeing, on this specific computation, with the Andhra Pradesh High Court's Cotton Corporation of India ruling on identical dates.
  • On personal hearing, the Court held Section 75(5) permits a maximum, not a mandatory minimum, of three adjournments upon sufficient cause being shown; since the petitioner sought and got an adjournment for the first hearing but neither attended nor sought adjournment for the second, adequate opportunity had been afforded.
  • Relying on Commercial Steel Limited, the Court held none of the recognised exceptions to the alternative-remedy bar were made out, and dismissed the writ petition, but permitted the petitioner to avail its appellate remedy under Section 107 by 31.08.2025 with the mandated pre-deposit, directing the appeal be decided on merits without a limitation objection.

Important Clarification

  • The three-month buffer under Section 73(2)/73(10) is computed in British calendar months (per Himachal Techno Engineers), not as a fixed 90-day count from a different anchor date — depending on which months fall in the gap, this can validate or invalidate an SCN by mere days; and Section 75(5)'s 'maximum three adjournments' proviso does not create a floor of three mandatory hearings where the assessee itself defaults on an offered hearing.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73(2) and 73(10), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – time limit for issuing SCN and passing the adjudication order.
  • Section 75(4) and 75(5), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – personal hearing and adjournment provisions.
  • Section 107, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – statutory first appeal, availed of pursuant to this order.

Decision – In Favour of

Dismissed on merits of both issues raised, but disposed of in favour of the Assessee to the limited extent of preserving the appellate remedy without a limitation bar.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
  • Case No.: W.P.(C) 4781/2025 and CM APPL. 22012/2025
  • Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
  • Date of Order: 29.07.2025 (reserved on 01.05.2025)

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.