The Bombay High Court recently ruled that an order confirming a GST demand cannot be a mere reproduction of a show cause notice. The decision, delivered by Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, was in response to a petition filed by GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. against the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax.
The petitioner challenged the order dated February 24, 2025, confirming a GST demand of ₹70.57 crore for FY 2020–21. It was alleged that the order suffered from non-application of mind and non-consideration of detailed replies filed on January 27 and February 6, 2025.
“Simply cutting and pasting the allegations in the show cause notice or mechanically reciting them verbatim does not inspire confidence that due consideration has been shown to the cause,” observed the Bench.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Reviews Justice Mathur Panel Report on Reforms in UP PCS(J) Examination Process
The Court found that the adjudicating authority had replicated the content of the show cause notice dated November 28, 2024, in the final order without engaging with the specific contentions raised by the petitioner. The legal team for the assessee, led by Senior Advocate Rohan Shah, submitted a comparative chart highlighting this “cut-and-paste exercise.”
The court also dismissed the department’s argument that the petitioner should have pursued an appeal. Given the complete non-application of mind and violation of natural justice, the Court noted:
“There is no point in directing the Petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal.”
Read also:- Delhi High Court: Punishment Cannot Be Endless — Relief Granted to Life Convict After 24 Years in Jail
In support of its ruling, the court cited Piramal Enterprises Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, where a similar lack of independent reasoning led to an order being quashed.
The Court emphasized Sections 73(9) and 75(6) of the CGST Act, which mandate that a proper officer must “consider” the representation and provide the basis of the decision. According to the judges:
“The term ‘consider’ means to weigh the merits with deliberate care. It does not mean transcription of representations without analysis.”
Read also:- No Holidays for Justice: Key Supreme Court Orders During Partial Court Working Days
Since the decision-making process was found to be flawed, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the adjudicating authority to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and allow an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Case Title: GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 12528 of 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Rohan Shah, Sr. Adv. with Mohammed Anajwalla, Chandni Tanna & Prathamesh Chavan
Counsel for Respondents: Prachi Tatake (Addl. GP), Shruti Vyas with Suman Kumar Das