GST demand stayed as court found summary show cause notice without proper SCN under Section 73(1) to be prima facie invalid

Case Summary

Case Title: Ananta Packaging and Printing v. Union of India & Ors
Court: Gauhati High Court
Petition No.: WP(C)/2093/2025
Category: Validity of SCN and Notification – Input Tax Credit / Demand Proceedings
Date of Order: 05.05.2025
Relevant Sections: Section 73(1), Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule provisions relating to summary SCN.

Facts (Para 2)

The petitioner, Ananta Packaging and Printing, challenged a Summary Show Cause Notice dated 12.12.2023 and the consequential order dated 27.04.2024 relating to FY 2018–19. The department relied upon Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, to extend limitation and justify the SCN. The petitioner argued that the said Notification was issued without following statutory procedure and that no mandatory SCN under Section 73(1) had been issued before the impugned order, rendering the proceedings illegal.

Questions for Consideration (Para 2–3, 5)

1. Whether a Summary Show Cause Notice under the rules can substitute a proper SCN under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act?

2. Whether Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023 issued under Section 168A was legally valid?

3. Whether proceedings based on the said Notification could be sustained pending scrutiny before the Supreme Court?

Observations (Paras 5–6)

The Court noted that the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023 is already under scrutiny before the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (SLP (C) No. 4240/2025). Moreover, a coordinate bench had already interfered with the said Notification. Therefore, prima facie, reliance on such Notification raised serious doubts.

Judgement / Order (Paras 3–6)

The Gauhati High Court issued notice returnable on 04.06.2025. Recognizing the pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court and the challenge to the Notification, the Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner under the impugned order dated 27.04.2024, till the next date of hearing.

Case Law Table

Between Fine Lines

For businesses, this order reinforces that a summary show cause notice cannot replace the mandatory SCN under Section 73(1). Demands issued merely on the basis of extended limitation notifications without following statutory procedure are vulnerable. Taxpayers facing such proceedings can seek relief, especially when the validity of the very notification is under consideration by higher courts.

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.”