Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Maithan Steel and Power Limited, challenged a notice to show cause cum demand dated 25.06.2025 issued by the Additional Director, DGGI, Kolkata Zonal Unit. The petitioner's grievance was that the show cause notice had been issued without considering its reply, submitted by email on 24.06.2025, to an earlier pre-show cause notice dated 19.06.2025 — despite a highly compressed five-day window granted for that reply — with the impugned show cause notice being issued the very next day.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the show cause cum demand notice, issued a day after the petitioner's reply to the pre-show cause notice, without apparent consideration of that reply, warranted the grant of a further opportunity.
  2. Whether the petitioner's delay of about three months in approaching the Court disentitled it to relief.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Despite a highly compressed five-day window to reply to the pre-show cause notice dated 19.06.2025, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply with supporting documents by email on 24.06.2025, and the show cause notice was issued the very next day, evidently without considering that reply.
  • The petitioner would be satisfied if given an opportunity to submit a detailed reply to the impugned show cause notice, with the adjudicating authority directed to consider that reply together with the earlier reply to the pre-show cause notice.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The writ petition should not be entertained as the petitioner approached the Court belatedly — about three months after receiving the show cause notice, despite it providing a thirty-day window to reply — without any explanation for the delay.

Court Order / Findings

  • Recording that the petitioner's submissions were fair and did not warrant serious objection, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file its detailed reply to the impugned show cause notice within four weeks.
  • The adjudicating authority (Additional/Joint Commissioner, Kolkata CGST & CX South Commissionerate) was directed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice together with the petitioner's earlier email reply to the pre-show cause notice dated 24.06.2025 and its annexures.
  • The adjudicating authority was directed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before taking a final decision.
  • It was clarified that if the petitioner does not file any further reply as directed, the earlier email reply and its annexures shall be treated as the petitioner's reply to the impugned show cause notice.

Important Clarification

  • Where a GST show cause notice is issued in apparent haste immediately after receipt of a reply to the preceding pre-show cause notice, courts will readily grant a further limited window to file a detailed reply and direct that both the earlier and the fresh replies be considered together, rather than treating the earlier delay in approaching the Court as an automatic bar to relief when the Department does not seriously press that objection.
  • A default safeguard — treating the existing reply as the operative response if no further reply is filed — protects the assessee's position even if it does not act on the extended opportunity.

Sections Involved

  • Pre-Show Cause Notice mechanism, CGST Rules, 2017 – intimation preceding formal show cause proceedings, non-consideration of the reply to which formed the core grievance.
  • Principles of Natural Justice under the GST Act, 2017 – underlying basis for directing a fresh reply opportunity and personal hearing.

Decision – In Favour of

The petition is disposed of in favour of the Assessee, granting a further opportunity to reply to the show cause notice and mandating a personal hearing before final adjudication.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court at Calcutta
  • Case No.: W.P.A. 24088 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Narayan Rai
  • Date of Order: 17.12.2025

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.