Writ jurisdiction should not interfere with GST show-cause notices absent jurisdictional error.

The petitioner, M/s Surya Business Private Limited, challenged the Show Cause Notice dated 11 January 2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Apex GST Audit Cell, Assam, under Section 73(1) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“AGST Act”).

The petitioner contended that it had paid the applicable GST to Respondent No. 4, the supplier of rental services, and that any non-filing or inadequate filing of returns by the supplier could not justify proceedings against the petitioner.

The petitioner relied on documents allegedly evidencing payment of GST and on various Supreme Court judgments.

Since the petitioner had filed the writ petition and an interim order had been passed on 5 February 2024, it had not submitted a reply to the Show Cause Notice.

Whether the Show Cause Notice dated 11 January 2024 issued under Section 73(1) of the AGST Act was liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction, particularly where the petitioner claimed to have paid GST to its supplier.

Whether the questions concerning payment of GST by the petitioner to the supplier and the supplier’s filing or non-filing of returns could be adjudicated in writ proceedings or were matters for determination by the Proper Officer.

Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file its reply to the Show Cause Notice and whether the period during which the proceedings remained stayed should be excluded while computing the limitation period under Section 73(10) of the AGST Act.

The Court applied Section 73(1) of the AGST Act, which permits issuance of a Show Cause Notice where tax has allegedly not been paid, has been short-paid, or input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for reasons other than fraud or wilful misstatement.

Section 73(9) governs the passing of the adjudication order after consideration of the taxpayer’s response, while Section 73(10) prescribes the period of limitation for passing such order.

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions of fact—such as whether GST was actually paid to the supplier and whether the supplier filed adequate returns—should ordinarily be determined by the statutory Proper Officer and not in writ jurisdiction.

It further held that judicial review is not warranted where the Show Cause Notice discloses no jurisdictional error and is founded on the Proper Officer’s satisfaction regarding the existence of facts justifying initiation of proceedings.

The Court found that the petitioner’s assertions regarding payment of GST to Respondent No. 4 and the supplier’s filing of returns involved disputed questions of fact requiring examination of evidence by the Proper Officer.

The petitioner’s reliance on Supreme Court judgments and supporting documents did not justify quashing the Show Cause Notice at the threshold; those materials could be produced with the petitioner’s reply before the Proper Officer.

As the notice had been issued on the basis of the Proper Officer’s opinion regarding the existence of facts warranting proceedings under Section 73, and no jurisdictional error was demonstrated, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226.

However, recognising that the petitioner had not filed a reply because of the pending writ proceedings and the interim stay, the Court granted a fresh opportunity to respond and directed exclusion of the period covered by the stay while computing the statutory limitation period.

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit its reply, including all contentions raised in the writ proceedings, within 30 days from 10 August 2026.

The period from 12 January 2024 until 10 August 2026 was directed to be excluded while computing the limitation under Section 73(10) for passing an order under Section 73(9) in consequence of the impugned notice.

The earlier interim order was vacated.