M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. ISC Processors Private Limited, challenged an order dated 14th November, 2025, passed by the Superintendent, Range-IV, Burrabazar Division, CGST & CX, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate. The order was issued under Section 74 of the GST Acts, 2017, following a show cause notice dated 21st July, 2025. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 13th August, 2025. The impugned order imposed a demand of Rs. 15,64,168/-. The petitioner contended that the authority failed to consider their reply to the show cause notice and did not deal with the contentions raised therein, thereby encroaching upon their fundamental rights.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 14th November, 2025, passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, was vitiated by a failure to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and the contentions raised therein. The Court reasoned that by not considering the petitioner's contentions, the authorities had encroached upon the petitioner's fundamental right. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, must be a reasoned order that considers the reply and contentions of the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The Court directed the concerned authority to pass a fresh reasoned order after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering their reply to the show cause notice along with any submitted documents. This exercise was to be completed within eight weeks from the date of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 14th November, 2025, passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, is vitiated by a failure to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice dated 21st July, 2025, and the contentions raised therein? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to consider their reply to the show cause notice and did not deal with the contentions raised therein. This failure, according to the petitioner, amounted to an encroachment upon their fundamental right. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents/CGST.