Case Details: Agarwal Tube Company Versus Union of India (2025) 30 Centax 203 (Pat.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- P. B. Bajanthri & S.B. Pd. Singh, JJ.
- Shri Bijay Kumar Gupta, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Adv. (ASG), S/Shri Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC, Shivaditya Dhari Singh, Adv. & Vikash Kumar, SC-11 for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner received a show cause notice for the period 2017-18, followed by another notice under Section 73(1). The latter notice directed the petitioner to submit a reply and appear for hearing, allowing only six days to respond. The petitioner contended that this violated Section 73(8) of the CGST Act, which mandates a minimum period of 30 days for furnishing a reply, thereby breaching principles of natural justice. The petitioner also argued that the limitation period for passing the order had already expired. In response, the revenue submitted that the time limit for adjudication had been extended up by virtue of statutory extensions. Relying on this extended timeline, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the order despite the short notice. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order before the Hon’ble Patna High Court.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Patna High Court held that the later notice did not comply with Section 73(8) as it gave less than 30 days for the petitioner to reply; the statutory period would have ended. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded with directions to issue a corrigendum extending the reply deadline and fixing the hearing date strictly in accordance with Section 73(8).
List of Cases Cited
- Barhonia Engicon (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar — 2025 (93) G.S.T.L. 4/(2024) 25 Centax 55 (Pat.) — Referred [Para 4]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 9/2023 CT, dated 31-03-2023; Notification No. 13/2022 CT, dated 05-07-2022
