GST Update/ 2026-27/0061

N.N. Wires and Steels Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Circle-2 & Others

GST UPDATE

Hon’ble Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Title: N.N. Wires and Steels Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Circle-2 & Others
Petition No. & Citation: WPT No. 109 of 2021

Hon’ble Judge(s)	Hon'ble Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Date of Order	16.07.2026
Outcome	Appeal Allowed

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner, N.N. Wires and Steels Private Limited, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the legality of proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Act. The dispute arose from a Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 26.06.2020, followed by a recovery order dated 01.09.2020 and a bank attachment order dated 02.02.2021. on the grounds of the violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 74 and the principles of natural justice, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the Summary Show Cause Notice, the subsequent recovery and attachment orders.

Question before Hon’ble Court

The High Court considered the following questions:

Whether a Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 without stating specific allegations satisfies the mandatory requirements of Section 74 of the CGST Act?
Whether failure to provide relied upon documents violates the principles of natural justice?
Whether subsequent adjudication, recovery and attachment proceedings can survive if the initial notice itself is legally defective?
Whether the availability of an alternative appellate remedy bars the writ jurisdiction in cases involving violation of natural justice?

Brief Arguments by Petitioner

Section 74 mandates issuance of a proper show cause notice specifying the exact allegations, reasons and proposed demand.
The Department merely reproduced the language of Section 74 instead of disclosing the factual basis of the proposed demand.
The petitioner repeatedly requested copies of relied upon documents but the same were never supplied. Without the documents, the petitioner could not effectively defend itself.
Since the foundation of the proceedings was illegal, every subsequent action including recovery and bank attachment was equally unsustainable.

Brief Arguments by Respondent

Writ Petition is not maintainable on account of availability of alternate remedy.
Petitioner purchased goods from the non-existing dealers and claimed bogus ITC from bogus dealers and therefore proceedings under Section 74 were rightly initiated.

Cases Relied Upon

Case Law	Citation
Ritesh Tewari and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others	[(2010) 10 SCC 677]

Findings and Judgement

The High Court examined the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, particularly sub-sections (1), (2) and (9), and observed the following:

The statutory scheme mandates issuance of a proper show cause notice specifying the precise allegations, the amount proposed to be recovered and the reasons for invoking the extended period on account of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, besides affording the taxpayer an adequate opportunity to submit its defence before passing any adjudication order.

In the instant case, it was found that the Department had merely reproduced the language of Section 74 without disclosing any specific allegations or factual basis for the proposed demand.

The Court further noted that although the petitioner had repeatedly sought copies of the relied upon documents, the Department failed to furnish the same, thereby depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity to defend itself. Holding that such non-supply of relied upon documents constituted a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Tewari and Anotherwherein it was held that an action which is illegal at its inception cannot be validated by subsequent proceedings, as the illegality strikes at the very root of the matter.

Applying the said principles, the High Court concluded that since the initiation of proceedings under Section 74 itself was not in accordance with law, the subsequent recovery order and bank attachment proceedings could not survive. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice, recovery order and attachment order were quashed, with liberty to the Department to issue a fresh notice under Section 74 containing specific reasons and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

CA Pradeep Jain_

This is solely for educational purpose

Readers can also access this from our

Linkedin account : www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16

Comments

GST Update/ 2026-27/0061

GST UPDATE

Brief Facts of the Case

Question before Hon’ble Court

Brief Arguments by Petitioner

Brief Arguments by Respondent

Cases Relied Upon

Findings and Judgement

Opinion

Author’s Comment

Post a Comment

Query