Facts of the Case

The Revenue, represented by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru West GST Commissionerate, filed this writ appeal against the Single Judge's order dated 17.12.2025 in W.P.No.32572/2024, which had allowed the writ petition of M/S. Sam Tours and Travels, a sole proprietorship, quashing a common show cause notice dated 05.07.2021 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act and the consequent Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2025. The Court noted that, on the same day, it had already allowed a batch of connected writ appeals, led by W.A.No.1751/2024, restoring identical show cause notices and orders-in-original on the same reasoning.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Single Judge's order quashing the Section 74 CGST show cause notice and Order-in-Original was sustainable, in light of the Division Bench's own decision the same day in the connected batch of writ appeals led by W.A.No.1751/2024.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • (Revenue, as appellant) The decision rendered earlier the same day in W.A.No.1751/2024 and connected appeals, restoring identical show cause notices and orders-in-original, applied equally to the present appeal, and the Single Judge's order ought to be set aside on the same basis.

Respondent's Arguments

  • (Assessee, as respondent) No independent grounds distinguishing the present matter from the batch decision in W.A.No.1751/2024 are recorded; the respondent was relegated to the statutory remedy with express protection on limitation.

Court Order / Findings

  • Having already decided, by order of the same date, the connected batch led by W.A.No.1751/2024 allowing the Revenue's appeals and restoring the show cause notices and orders-in-original, the Court held that decision would aptly apply to the present appeal as well.
  • Since the Order-in-Original was passed pursuant to a Section 74 show cause notice, and given the limited power vested in the appellate authority to condone delay, coupled with the respondent having diligently pursued the writ remedy, the Court considered it appropriate to relegate the respondent to the statutory appeal remedy while granting six weeks to file such appeal, with the appellate authority barred from raising the plea of limitation if filed within that time.
  • The writ appeal was allowed, the Single Judge's order set aside, and the show cause notice dated 05.07.2021 and Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2025 restored, with the appellate authority directed to hear the appeal on merits if filed in time.

Important Clarification

Where a Division Bench, in a connected batch of writ appeals, has already restored identical Section 74 CGST show cause notices and orders-in-original quashed by a Single Judge on a common legal reasoning, it will apply that same reasoning to any other appeal on materially identical facts decided the same day, while protecting the assessee's ability to pursue the statutory appellate remedy on merits by barring a limitation objection if the appeal is filed within the time granted.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, CGST Act, 2017 – demand and recovery of tax not paid or wrongly availed by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – statutory appeal remedy against an Order-in-Original, to which the respondent was relegated with a limitation-objection bar.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Department, in the sense that the show cause notice and Order-in-Original were restored — though the Assessee retains a real chance to succeed on the merits before the appellate authority, with limitation expressly taken off the table.

Case Details

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Writ Appeal No.793 of 2026 (T-RES), arising from W.P.No.32572/2024; Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.G. Pandit and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.V. Aravind; Order dated 24.04.2026; CNR: 2026:KHC:23101-DB.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.