[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
A.M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its ... vs The Union Of India, Thr. The Ministry Of ... on 17 January, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2026:BHC-NAG:726-DB
Order wp 7941.2025.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 7941 OF 2025
[A. M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi through its authorized signatory and Director
Ms. Suchishree Mukherjee W/o Sandeep Kunte vs. The Union of India, through Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and ors.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anurag Soan with Mr. Onkar Bhope, Advocates for the
petitioner
Ms. Ketki Jaltare Vaidya, Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4
Mr. A. J. Gohokar, AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 5
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE : 17-01-2026.
For the time being, learned counsel for the
petitioner is not pressing for orders on prayer clauses
(c) and (d) of the petition.
2. On 9-1-2025, following order was passed.
"Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that affidavit of service is filed. The
Registry has not recorded its satisfaction as regards
service to respondents. A vague report is filed that
petitioner's counsel has filed affidavit of service.
The Registry shall examine affidavit and
make categorical remark/s as regards service to
respondents. This practice shall be followed in all
the cases.
Registrar (Judicial) shall accordingly, by
way instructions, issue circular/office order, as the
case may be.
Order wp 7941.2025.odt
Kept back.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE.)
Later on, heard for some time.
The issue involved is whether time gap of
three months should be maintained between
issuance of notice under sub-section (2) of Section
73 and passing order under sub-section (10) of
Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act').
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
invited our attention to the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of
C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Additional Commissioner, CGST-Delhi-South and
ors. in W.P. (C) 15508/2024, dated 29-10-2025
wherein while interpreting the provisions, the Court
held as under :-
"9. Heard, ld. Counsels for the parties.
Sections 73(2) and Section 73(10) of the
CGST Act were interpreted by this Court in
W.P.(C) 4781/2025 titled Tata Play Limited vs.
Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO where it has
been observed as under :
20. The limitation for issuance of such a
notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act
has to be construed in the light of Section
73(2) and 73(10) of the CGST Act. The said
two sub-sections are set out below :
"Section 73(2) - The proper officer shall
issue the notice under sub-section (1) at
least three months prior to the time
limit specified in sub-section (10) for
issuance of order.
.......
Section 73(10) - The proper officer shall
issue the order under sub-section (9)
within three years from the due date for
furnishing of annual retum for the
financial year to which the tax not paid
or short paid or input tax credit wrongly
availed or utilized relates to or within
Order wp 7941.2025.odt
three years from the date of erroneous
refund."
21. A perusal of the above stated
provisions would show that an order has to
be passed by the 'proper officer' within a
period of three years from the due date for
furnishing the annual retums for the said
financial year. For issuance of a show cause
notice, at least three months' period prior to
the time limit under Section 73(10) of the
CGST Act would be available. Thus, the
show cause notice has to be issued at least
three months prior to the outer limit
prescribed for passing of an order under
Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.
22. In the opinion of this Court, there is a
difference in the language of the two sub-
sections discussed herein above. Section
73(10) of the CGST Act prescribes an outer
limit for passing of an adjudication order
under the Act.
23. On the other hand, Section 73(2) of the
CGST Act provides that at least three
months prior to the outer limit of 3 years
for passing an order under Section 73(10)
of the CGST Act, a notice is to be served.
24. While the purpose behind Section
73(10) of the CGST Act is to fix the date by
which an adjudication order has to be
issued, the purpose of Section 73(2) of the
CGST Act is to ensure that at least three
months is available to the taxable person for
filing a reply to the show cause notice
issued to them and for being heard in a
proper manner. Thus, the time period
between issuance of the show cause notice
and the outer limit for passing of the order
should be at least three months.
25. The statutory intent behind providing
this gap of 3 months can be interpreted to
arise from a further reading of Section 73,
CGST Act wherein, Section 73(3), CGST Act
contemplates the service of a statement
Order wp 7941.2025.odt
upon the noticee, giving all the details of
the demand proposed to be raised. Further
under Section 73(5), CGST Act, the noticee
has the option of paying the tax by doing a
self-assessment and if such amount is paid
within 30 days of the issuance of the show
cause notice under Section 73(1), CGST
Act, no penalty would be payable by the
noticee."
10. In terms of the above decision, the
purpose of Section 73(2) of the CGST Act has
been clearly held to provide the minimum
period of three months to the assessee for
filing the reply to the SCN. The three month's
period prescribed in Section 73(2) of the
CGST Act is mandatory when read with
Section 73(10) of the CGST Act."
On the similar line, a view is taken by the Division
Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case
of M/s. The Cotton Corporation of India Vs.
Assistant Commissioner St Auditfac and others in
Writ Petition No. 1463/2025 on 5-2-2025 wherein
the Court held as under :-
"13. Another way of looking at this issue
is the purpose for which such limitation has
been prescribed under the Act. Section 75 of
the GST Act, stipulates that the tax payer is
not only entitled to a notice before any
assessment is carried out but also the right of
personal hearing, irrespective of whether such
personal hearing is requested. When there is a
possibility of an adverse order being passed
against tax payer, the facility of obtaining at
least three adjournments for personal hearing
etc. The said provisions, protecting the
interest of the tax payer, would be rendered
otiose if notice should permitted to be sent
without a minimum waiting period. The said
protections can then be bypassed by the
authorities issuing show cause notice with a
week's time or 10 days and calling upon tax
payer to put forth his objections in that
shortened time. That does not appear to be
Order wp 7941.2025.odt
intent of the provisions of Section 75(2) or
Section 73(10) of the GST Act.
14. For all the aforesaid reasons, we
would have to hold that the time permit set
out under 73(2) of the Act is mandatory and
any violation of that time period cannot be
condoned, and would render the show cause
notice otiose."
As such, in both the judgments, the facts
were such that the notice under sub-section (2) of
Section 73 was not issued within stipulated time
as mentioned under sub-section (10) of Section
73. The reason assigned for setting aside notice,
however, is that the time gap of three months
between issuance of notice and passing final order
requires multiple activities which includes
following principle of natural justice, opportunity
of payment of tax etc. and, therefore, time gap of
three months should be strictly followed.
The argument is that this time gap of
three months is applicable to the notices, which
are issued well before the time prescribed under
sub-section (10) of Section 73 of the CGST Act.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader
seeks time to have research on the point. Time
granted.
List on 17-1-2026.
Ms. Ketki Jaltare, learned counsel
appears for respondent no. 1 and submits that
Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, learned counsel be
relieved. Statement accepted. Registry to note."
3. As could be seen, learned Assistant
Government Pleader sought time to have research on
the point. Ms. Ketki Jaltare Vaidya, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 1, who also appears for
respondent nos. 3 and 4, was before the Court. Both
the learned counsels were aware of the order passed on
9-1-2026. It was accordingly expected that the
Order wp 7941.2025.odt
respondents will come up with the authority which
either speaks otherwise on what has been quoted in our
order or will support it, however, they are harping on
the provisions, particularly, sub-section (10) of Section
73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
(CGST Act) to contend that time gap of three months is
applicable only in context with the outer date of
issuance of notice and not for notices issued well within
time.
4. The argument does not deal with the crucial
reason which we have mentioned in our order as to why
this time gap of three months between issuance of
notice and passing final order is necessary. The
necessity arises because multiple activities are to be
performed in the intervening period which includes
following principles of natural justice, opportunity of
payment of tax etc. Thus, the rationale behind three
month's time is to afford meaningful opportunity of
hearing to the persons like the petitioner. If this time is
shortened, the requirement of sub-sections (3) and (5)
of Section 73 of CGST Act, which provide for service of
a statement upon the noticee, giving all the details of
the demand proposed to be raised and option to the
assessee by paying tax by doing a self-assessment and to
pay the amount, will not be achieved. The another
reason is when there is a possibility of an adverse order
being passed against tax payer, the facility of obtaining
at least three adjournments for personal hearing etc.
will be rendered otiose, if the assessment is to be done
Order wp 7941.2025.odt
within the time lesser than three months which will
fall short of giving reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Thus, the protection guaranteed under the provisions of
the CGST Act will not be extended, if the gap of three
months between the issuance of notice and passing final
order is not maintained.
5. For the aforesaid reason, we hold that it is
mandatory to keep gap of three months between
issuance of notice and passing final order under sub-
section (2) read with sub-section (10) of Section 73 of
the CGST Act.
6. In the present case, the notice has been issued
on 15-5-2024 and final order has been passed on
9-7-2024. Thus, there was time gap of about one
month 24 days. The order impugned is, therefore,
unsustainable.
7. The petition is, accordingly, partly allowed.
Show cause notice dated 15-5-2024 and order dated
9-7-2024 issued by respondent no. 5 are quashed and
set aside.
8. The matter is remanded back to respondent
no. 5 for consideration afresh in accordance with law
and what has been stated in the body of the order.
9. The petitioner shall appear before respondent
no. 5 on 23-1-2026.
Order wp 7941.2025.odt
10. Respondent no. 7 shall also take corrective
steps as regards removal of lien on petitioner's Current
Bank Account No. 9911568883, if there is no other
legal impediment.
11. The petition is disposed of in terms of above
with no order as to costs.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE.)
wasnik
Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/01/2026 17:49:05
