Novus Animal Nutrition PVT. LTD. Through Its Sr. Gl Coordinator Asia Mr Rohan R Kushtagi Private Co vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that a writ petition is generally not maintainable against a show cause notice, especially when the petitioner's own pleadings confirm they are the supplier and the dispute involves classification of goods and potential tax liability. The Court referred to the Apex Court's judgment in Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. and a Division Bench judgment in Sanjay Malveeya and Ors. Vs. State of M.P and Ors., which lay down that such petitions against show cause notices should not be entertained. The Court noted that the petitioner's argument that they are not the supplier was contradicted by their own admissions in the petition. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice within 15 days, raising all contentions, and the competent authority was directed to consider these contentions without being influenced by any observations made by the Court or the respondent's reply. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Novus Animal Nutrition Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 30/09/2025 issued under Sections 74 and 74A of the CGST Act, 2017. The notice proposed a demand of Rs. 35,93,10,930/- along with interest and penalty for the financial years 2019-20 to 2025-26 (up to August 2025). The revenue alleged that the petitioner misclassified goods supplied under HSN code 2309, which are preparations for nutritional animal feed supplements/additives. The petitioner contended that these goods are exempt from GST under Entry No. 102 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and that they had no GST liability as their supply was entirely exempt. The petitioner's own pleadings confirmed they were the supplier.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against a show cause notice issued under Sections 74 and 74A of the CGST Act, 2017, when the petitioner claims to be a supplier of goods that are exempt from GST. Petitioner's contention: The impugned show cause notice is arbitrary and issued without application of mind, as the petitioner is not the person who supplied the produce in question. The petitioner also argued other grounds which could not be adjudicated in a writ petition. Revenue's contention: The petitioner's own pleadings in paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of the petition clearly indicate that the petitioner is the supplier and has made supplies during the period in question, thereby contradicting their claim of not being the supplier. The revenue relied on the petitioner's own admissions regarding the transaction and classification.