GST Order Invalid Due to Inadequate SCN Reply Time | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 14 April, 2026

Case Details: Golden Cryo (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 133 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
-
Dr Sujay Kantawala, Anupam Dighe, Ms Renita Alex & Ms Chandni Tanna for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an exporter, filed a refund application for accumulated ITC on zero-rated supplies without payment of tax. It was submitted that a show cause notice (SCN) was issued in Form GST RFD-08 alleging fake invoices by suppliers but granted only seven days to reply instead of the prescribed period. It submitted a preliminary reply via email and sought a personal hearing; however, the proper officer passed an order in Form GST RFD-06 on the next day rejecting the refund without issuing any hearing notice or considering the reply. It was contended that such action violated the relevant GST provisions, which mandate a fifteen-day reply period and grant of hearing before adjudication. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that under Section 54 of the CGST Act and Maharashtra GST Act read with Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, a minimum period of fifteen days must be granted to reply to a SCN, and adjudication can be undertaken only after considering such reply and granting an opportunity of hearing. It held that curtailment of the reply period to seven days rendered the notice contrary to the statutory mandate. The Court further held that the denial of a personal hearing and the failure to consider the reply violated the requirement of fair procedure embedded in Section 75. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order was quashed with a direction to issue a fresh notice.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Haren Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CST [2024] 168 taxmann.com 356 (Bom) (para 12), followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Haren Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CST [2024] 168 taxmann.com 356 (Bom) (para 5)
- Carbon Resources (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition (T) No. 3532 of 2025, dated 26-11-2025] (para 5)
- Tvl. C. Ragupathi Contractor v. Dy. CST [2026] 183 taxmann.com 556/114 GST 382 (Mad) (para 5).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA