Case Details: J.S.W. Techno Projects Management Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 36 Centax 174 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
- S/Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, Vishal Agarwal, Advs. & Ms Heema Doshi, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ram Ochani, Ms Sangeeta Yadav, Addl. G.P & Ms Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners challenged the rejection of a rectification application filed under section 161 of CGST, alleging errors in a show-cause notice issued to them. It was submitted that the notice ignored taxes already paid and raised valuation issues relating to the includability of free-of-cost supplies, which according to the petitioners stood clarified by a circular dated 26-03-2018. The rectification application was rejected without granting a prior hearing, leading the petitioners to file a writ petition contending that the rejection was arbitrary. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the reference to ‘notice’ in section 161 was confined to instruments having an immediate prejudicial or demand effect and did not extend to a show-cause notice which by itself imposed no liability. It was held that no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated, as the issues relating to taxes paid and valuation, including the includability of free-of-cost supplies, were disputed questions that could be raised and adjudicated in reply to the show-cause notice along with supporting documents. The Court further held that invocation of section 161 to seek amendment of a show-cause notice was misconceived and that the absence of a pre-decisional hearing in the rectification proceedings caused no prejudice since all grievances could be urged in the reply and were also addressed during the writ proceedings. Accordingly, interference was declined.
List of Cases Cited
- Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 33 Centax 222 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Para 3, 13, 14, 18]
- Oberoi Constructions Ltd. v. Union of India — (2024) 25 Centax 251 (Bom.) = 2025 (95) G.S.T.L. 101 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 16]
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks — (1998) 8 SCC 1 — Referred [Para 15]
