M/S.Sara Plantations vs. The Superintendent Of CGST Central Excise(Audit)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sara Plantations, has filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice (SCN) dated August 13, 2025, issued by the Superintendent of CGST Central Excise (Audit). The SCN, bearing reference SC N SI No.14/2025-GST (SUPDT) MDU Audit Circle, was issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the notice seeks to reopen demands for past tax periods by erroneously giving retrospective effect to a circular that has prospective operation. The petitioner also seeks a direction to extend the benefit of waiver of late fee under Notification No.8/2025 - Central Tax dated January 23, 2025, and to consider their representation dated October 7, 2025, noting that they filed the reconciliation statement in Form GSTR-9C in April and May 2025. The respondents are the Superintendent of CGST Central Excise (Audit), the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise (Theni Range), and the Union of India.

Held

The Court observed that the matter under challenge is a show cause notice. It held that the petitioner has a clear remedy to file their objections to the said notice. The Court granted the petitioner four weeks from November 12, 2025, to submit their objections. The Court further stated that if any adverse order is passed subsequently, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the High Court or avail other available remedies. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the retrospective application of the circular or the waiver of late fees, as these issues were not adjudicated upon in this writ petition. The primary decision was to allow the petitioner to respond to the SCN.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, erroneously seeks to reopen or propose demands for past tax periods by giving retrospective effect to a circular that has only prospective operation? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the SCN is flawed as it relies on a circular with prospective effect to demand taxes for past periods. They also contended that they are eligible for waiver of late fees as per Notification No.8/2025 - Central Tax, and their representation dated October 7, 2025, should be considered. They highlighted their timely filing of GSTR-9C in April and May 2025. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's observation implies that the petitioner has a remedy to file objections to the SCN.