Case: Tata Play Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition: W.P.(C) 4781/2025 & CM Appl. 22012/2025
Date of Judgment: 29th July, 2025 (Reserved on 01st May, 2025)
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit (ITC) – Limitation & Natural Justice
Relevant Sections: Sections 73(2), 73(10), 75(4), 75(5), 107 of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule 80(1)(A) of CGST Rules, 2017
Judges: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
Facts (Paras 2–12)
Tata Play Ltd., engaged in DTH broadcasting services and registered under the CGST Act, received a show cause notice (SCN) dated 30th November, 2024 alleging wrongful availment of ITC for FY 2020–21. The SCN culminated in an order dated 28th February, 2025 demanding ₹5.63 crores tax, ₹4.22 crores interest, and ₹56 lakhs penalty. Tata Play challenged the proceedings, claiming (i) the SCN was time-barred under Section 73(2) and 73(10), and (ii) denial of effective opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4).
The Department countered that the SCN was issued within time (calculated as three calendar months) and that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities for hearing but failed to attend.
Questions Before the Court (Para 4)
-
Was the SCN dated 30th November, 2024 issued within limitation under Section 73(2) read with Section 73(10) of the CGST Act?
-
Was adequate opportunity afforded to Tata Play for reply and personal hearing under Section 75?
Observations (Paras 18–49)
-
On Limitation:
-
Section 73(10) requires orders within three years from due date of annual return (here extended to 28th Feb 2022 under Rule 80 and Notification 40/2021). Thus, order deadline was 28th Feb 2025.
-
Section 73(2) mandates SCN at least three months before the outer limit. The SCN issued on 30th Nov 2024 gave exactly three calendar months (Dec–Feb) before the last date.
-
Court preferred interpretation of “three months” as calendar months, relying on Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) 12 SCC 210 and Dodds v. Walker (HL, 1981).
-
Court declined to follow Cotton Corporation of India (AP HC, 2025), holding the SCN valid.
-
-
On Opportunity of Hearing:
-
Tata Play was given one month to reply (till 30th Dec 2024), extension till 27th Jan 2025, and hearings fixed for 17th Jan and 27th Jan 2025.
-
Though replies were filed (22nd Jan & 21st Feb), Tata Play missed the personal hearing on 27th Jan 2025.
-
Court held Section 75(5) permits a maximum of three adjournments, not a minimum entitlement. Since adjournment was sought once and granted, and the second hearing was missed without request, there was no breach of natural justice.
-
-
On Writ Maintainability:
-
Following Commercial Steel Ltd. (SC, 2021), writ jurisdiction cannot bypass alternate remedy unless exceptional circumstances exist (none were found here).
-
Appeal under Section 107 is a full-fledged remedy where the Appellate Authority can modify, confirm, or annul the order.
-
Judgment (Paras 50–54)
-
The SCN was within limitation under Section 73(2).
-
Adequate opportunities of hearing were given; failure was attributable to the petitioner.
-
No violation of natural justice or excess jurisdiction was established.
-
Writ petition dismissed.
-
Liberty granted to file appeal under Section 107 by 31st August 2025 with pre-deposit; such appeal to be adjudicated on merits without dismissal on limitation grounds.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Court & Citation | Ratio / Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| State of HP v. Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) 12 SCC 210 | Supreme Court | “Three months” means calendar months, not fixed 90 days. |
| Dodds v. Walker (1981) 2 All ER 609 (HL) | House of Lords | “Months” in statutes mean calendar months. |
| M/s Cotton Corporation of India v. AC (ST), 2025 SCC OnLine AP 652 | AP High Court | Held SCN issued two days late under Section 73(2) was time-barred; not followed by Delhi HC. |
| Commercial Steel Ltd. (CA No. 5121 of 2021) | Supreme Court | Writ barred where alternate remedy under Section 107 exists unless exceptional grounds. |
| Sonu Monu Telecom Pvt Ltd v. UOI W.P.(C) 2926/2025 | Delhi HC | Appellate Authority under Section 107 has wide powers to reconsider evidence, confirm, modify, or annul order. |
| Addl. DG v. Its My Name Pvt Ltd. 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2760 | Delhi HC | Appellate authority empowered to decide on merits, not merely remand. |
| Sun Pharma Laboratories v. UOI W.P.(C) 09/2020 (Sikkim HC) | Sikkim HC | Appellate authority can sustain order on alternate reasoning under Section 107(11). |
Between Fine Lines (Trade Perspective)
The judgment reinforces that GST limitation timelines under Section 73 must be read as calendar months, protecting both taxpayers and the department from arbitrary interpretations. Taxpayers must vigilantly attend hearings, as missing them can close the door to natural justice arguments. However, robust appellate powers under Section 107 ensure that substantive claims on ITC can still be pursued at the appellate stage.
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.”
