Facts
The petitioner, a healthcare-services company registered under the GST Act, obtained cancellation of its GST registration with effect from 15 September 2021.
Source reference: p. 4–8The second respondent initiated scrutiny for FY 2017–18 and issued a show-cause notice under Section 73(1), but the record contained no material showing service of that notice through the GST portal, RPAD, or email.
Source reference: p. 4–8The authority subsequently passed an ex parte order confirming a demand of ₹22,67,000 and issued Form GST DRC-07.
Source reference: p. 4–8The petitioner appealed, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal as delayed.
Source reference: p. 4–8The petitioner had deposited 10% of the tax demand when filing the appeal.
Source reference: p. 4–8Issues
Whether the tax demand and appellate order could stand where the record did not establish service of the show-cause notice on the petitioner.
Source reference: p. 5–7Whether the petitioner should be given an opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and have the matter reconsidered on merits.
Source reference: p. 7–8Law Applied
Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes the modes by which notices and other communications under the Act may be served; the Court noted the absence of material showing service by the GST portal, RPAD, or email.
Source reference: p. 5Section 61 of the Act read with Rule 99 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 concerns scrutiny of returns, while Section 73(1) read with Rule 142(1)(a) provides for a show-cause notice in the relevant tax proceedings.
Source reference: p. 5The Court also referred to Section 73(5) read with Rule 142(1A), and to its prior decisions in Ebix Smartclass Educational Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bengaluru, Vulcan Metallurgical Works v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belagavi, and Shri Amoghasiddeshwar Civil and Engineering Works v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-1).
Source reference: p. 5, 7–8Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner specifically asserted that it had not received the show-cause notice or the impugned order, and the record did not establish that the notice had been served in a manner contemplated by Section 169.
Source reference: p. 5–8The ex parte demand had therefore been made without an effective opportunity for the petitioner to respond.
Source reference: p. 5–8In light of that procedural deficiency, and having regard to the petitioner’s 10% deposit and the cited decisions, the Court concluded that the petitioner should be allowed to file objections and have the matter reconsidered on its merits.
Source reference: p. 5–8Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside both the original order dated 22 December 2023 and the appellate order dated 30 July 2025.
It directed the petitioner to appear before the second respondent on 26 October 2026, whereupon the authority must furnish a copy of the show-cause notice.
Source reference: p. 8–9The petitioner was granted three weeks from that date to file objections and documents; the authority must then hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 8–9No order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 8–9Acts & Sections Cited
3 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20173
Original Court PDF
M/S YASHODHARA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL PVT LTDvsTHE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERICAL TAXES (APPEALS)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
