Case Title: Jio Digital Fibre Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
Petition No.: Writ Petition No. 28469 of 2024 (T-RES)
Category: Assessment / Re-adjudication under GST
Date of Judgment: 27 March 2025
Relevant Sections: Sections 73(2), 73(9), 73(10), 168 and 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 read with KGST Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 1–4)
Jio Digital Fibre Pvt. Ltd. challenged the adjudication order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement-18) under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act for the FY 2019–20. The company argued that the order was time-barred under Section 73(10), contrary to Circular No. 219/13/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024, and violative of Section 168 regarding adherence to binding instructions. It also sought to declare the notifications 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023 and 25/2023-FD dated 29.12.2023 as ultra vires Section 168A.
During the pendency of the writ, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed an order on 28.02.2025, dropping the show cause notice for FY 2020–21 (Form DRC-05) issued to the same petitioner, stating that the proceedings were closed without prejudice to any future action. This subsequent development indicated possible inconsistency in departmental treatment between consecutive years.
Questions before the Court
-
Whether the adjudication order for FY 2019–20 was sustainable when proceedings for the subsequent year (FY 2020–21) had been dropped on similar grounds.
-
Whether the impugned order suffered from procedural illegality or needed reconsideration in light of the later development.
-
Whether the limitation and binding circular issues under Sections 73(10) and 168 warranted interference.
Observations (Paras 5–7)
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that since the department had already dropped proceedings for FY 2020–21, fairness and consistency required that the adjudicating authority reconsider the earlier order for FY 2019–20. The State counsel also conceded that the respondent No. 5 (Assistant Commissioner) would re-visit the order in light of the subsequent departmental action. The Court thus found it appropriate to set aside the earlier order and direct a fresh decision considering the DRC-05 dropping order dated 28.02.2025.
Judgment (Para 8)
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the adjudication order dated 30.08.2024, and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement-18) for reconsideration.
-
The petitioner was directed to appear on 07.04.2025 without awaiting notice.
-
The authority was required to pass a fresh, reasoned order within four weeks of appearance.
-
The petitioner could submit additional documents, and all rival contentions remained open.
Table: Summary of Cited / Relevant References
| Case / Reference | Court / Circular | Key Holding / Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Circular No. 219/13/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 | CBIC | Clarified scope of limitation and procedural safeguards under Section 73. |
| Notifications 56/2023-CT & 25/2023-FD | CBIC & Govt. of Karnataka | Petitioner claimed they were ultra vires Section 168A extending limitation period. |
| Section 73(10), CGST Act | Statute | Prescribes limitation for adjudication under non-fraud cases. |
| Section 168, CGST Act | Statute | Mandates binding effect of Board’s circulars on subordinate officers. |
Between Fine Lines
This decision reaffirms that consistency in departmental adjudication across tax periods is essential under GST. If the department drops proceedings for one year, it cannot mechanically uphold similar demands for another without reasoned differentiation. Officers must also adhere to binding CBIC circulars under Section 168, and remand orders like this ensure fairness and administrative coherence.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
