Harihar Alloys Private Limited vs. The Central Board Of Customs And Indirect Taxes

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Harihar Alloys Private Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes, Audit Circle, Trichy. The notice was dated September 21, 2025. The petitioner contended that the notice was arbitrary, lacked jurisdiction, and was in contravention of specific sections of the GST Acts and Articles of the Constitution. The respondents were the Central Board of Customs and Indirect Taxes and two Assistant Commissioners of Central Taxes. The writ petition sought to quash the show cause notice.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the authority issuing the show cause notice was not lacking jurisdiction. However, considering the special facts and circumstances of the case, the Court granted the petitioner four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order to file their reply to the show cause notice. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions raised by the writ petitioner were left open for consideration. Furthermore, the limitation period for the authority to pass a final order was to be correspondingly extended. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice issued by the second respondent is arbitrary, lacks jurisdiction, and is in contravention of Sections 7(2), 9, and 73 of the GST Acts and Articles 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was arbitrary, lacked jurisdiction, and contravened Sections 7(2), 9, and 73 of the GST Acts, as well as Articles 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution. The specific grounds for these contentions were not detailed in the provided text. Revenue's contentions: The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the court noted that the authority issuing the notice was not lacking jurisdiction.