The Delhi High Court, in Tata Play Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, examined important questions concerning the limitation period for issuance of a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the extent of opportunity for personal hearing required under Section 75 of the CGST Act. The judgment was delivered on 29 July 2025 in W.P.(C) 4781/2025 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta.
Tata Play Ltd., engaged in providing Direct-to-Home broadcasting services, challenged a show cause notice dated 30 November 2024 relating to FY 2020-21 and the consequential demand order dated 28 February 2025. The order raised a demand of approximately ₹5.63 crore as tax, along with approximately ₹4.22 crore as interest and ₹56.35 lakh as penalty, primarily on allegations concerning excess Input Tax Credit.
GST Show Cause Notice and Section 73 Limitation
The principal issue before the Court was whether the show cause notice had been issued within the limitation contemplated by Sections 73(2) and 73(10) of the CGST Act.
The due date for furnishing the annual return for FY 2020-21 had been extended to 28 February 2022. Consequently, the three-year outer period prescribed under Section 73(10) for passing the adjudication order expired on 28 February 2025.
Tata Play argued that Section 73(2) required the notice to be issued at least three months before this date and that the relevant cut-off was therefore 28 November 2024. Since the notice had been issued on 30 November 2024, the company contended that the proceedings were barred by limitation.
The Revenue, however, maintained that the expression “three months” referred to three calendar months, namely December 2024, January 2025 and February 2025, making the notice dated 30 November 2024 valid.
The Delhi High Court accepted the Revenue’s interpretation. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers, the Court observed that a “month” is to be understood as a calendar month rather than necessarily as a fixed period of 30 days. It further referred to the definition of “month” under the General Clauses Act as a month reckoned according to the British calendar.
Accordingly, the Court held that the period consisting of December 2024, January 2025 and February 2025 constituted three calendar months. It also observed that these months collectively contained 90 days and that there was a clear gap of 90 days between 30 November 2024 and 28 February 2025.
The Court therefore concluded that the SCN dated 30 November 2024 was within the statutory limitation period and that neither the notice nor the consequential order could be treated as without jurisdiction on this ground.
Delhi HC Disagrees with Andhra Pradesh HC View
An important aspect of the judgment is the Delhi High Court’s disagreement with the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in M/s Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC).
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had dealt with identical relevant dates and considered an SCN issued on 30 November 2024 to be beyond the period contemplated by Section 73(2), treating 28 November 2024 as the relevant deadline.
The Delhi High Court expressly disagreed with that interpretation and held that, when understood as calendar months, the notice issued on 30 November 2024 satisfied the statutory requirement. This divergence is significant for GST proceedings concerning FY 2020-21 where limitation under Section 73 is under consideration.
Personal Hearing and Natural Justice
The second major issue concerned the opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75 of the CGST Act.
The original SCN provided Tata Play time until 30 December 2024 to file its reply and scheduled a personal hearing for 17 January 2025. After Tata Play requested additional time, the Department extended the opportunity and fixed another hearing for 27 January 2025. Tata Play filed its reply on 22 January 2025 but did not attend the hearing on 27 January 2025, describing the failure as an inadvertent oversight. A further reply was filed on 21 February 2025.
The petitioner argued that Section 75(5) entitled it to further opportunities and relied upon the provision permitting adjournments.
The High Court rejected the argument that Section 75(5) requires a taxpayer to be granted a minimum of three adjournments. The Court clarified that the provision merely places a ceiling of three adjournments and permits an adjournment where sufficient cause is shown. A taxpayer must, at the minimum, make a request and demonstrate sufficient cause.
Since Tata Play had already received opportunities of hearing and admittedly failed to attend the second scheduled hearing without seeking an adjournment, the Court held that adequate opportunity had been provided. Consequently, the plea of violation of principles of natural justice was not accepted.
Alternative Remedy under Section 107
The Court also emphasized the availability of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited, the Court reiterated that a writ petition against an appealable GST order is ordinarily not warranted unless exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or challenge to statutory validity are established.
The Court further noted that an appeal under Section 107 is a full-fledged first appeal and that the Appellate Authority possesses wide powers under Section 107(11) to confirm, modify or annul the adjudication order and reconsider the material on record.
Decision of the Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition. It held that the impugned SCN dated 30 November 2024 and the order dated 28 February 2025 were within limitation and that sufficient opportunities of hearing had been afforded to Tata Play.
Considering the nature of the demand, however, the Court permitted Tata Play to avail the appellate remedy by 31 August 2025, subject to the statutory pre-deposit under Section 107. It directed that, if the appeal was filed within that period, it should be adjudicated on merits and should not be dismissed on limitation grounds. The Court also clarified that its observations would not prejudice the final adjudication of the appeal.
The ruling is significant for GST practitioners because it addresses the computation of the “three months” requirement under Section 73(2), distinguishes calendar months from a corresponding-date approach, clarifies the operation of adjournments under Section 75(5), and reinforces the role of the statutory appellate mechanism under Section 107.
