Retrospective GST Amendment in SCN Questioned – Recovery Stayed | HC

Case Details: Life Line Multi- Ventures (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2026] 182 taxmann.com 635 (Orissa)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Harish Tandon, CJ. & Murahari Sri Raman, J.
• Rudra Prasad Kar, Sr. Adv. & Sriman Arpeet Mohanty, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel & Mukesh Agarwal, Junior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a private limited company, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court to question the legality of the show-cause notice (SCN) issued in Form GST DRC-01. The SCN was issued, under Section 73 of the Odisha Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (OGST Act) for the tax periods from April 2021 to March 2022. The petitioner contended that the SCN was not sustainable as it sought to apply an amendment to Section 17(5)(d) introduced by the Finance Act 2025. The amendment was brought into force in Section 17(5)(d) by virtue of the Finance Act 2025, whereby for the words “plant or machinery”, the words “plant and machinery” were substituted. Further, the SCN was issued in connection with and in pursuance of an audit report furnished under Section 65 of the OGST Act, which is hit by the period of limitation provided therein. The Department contended that the matter was taken up for the first time for the entertainment of the writ petition. The audit was completed on 02-07-2025, and the order under Section 73 of the OGST Act was passed on 05-12-2025. Thus, the legality of the SCN cannot be examined in the present writ petition.

High Court Held

The Orissa High Court held that the SCN could not be issued to determine tax liability for the relevant period when the amendment to Section 17(5)(d) was brought in by virtue of the Finance Act 2025 and the OGST (Amendment) Act 2025. The amendment to Section 17(5)(d) was notified after the issuance of the SCN. Therefore, the transactions for the relevant period could not be questioned by such SCN. The Court was of the prima facie view that the authority could not issue the SCN to apply the amendments introduced after the issuance of the SCN. The question of the retrospectivity of the amendment was raised. The Court was inclined to entertain this writ petition to consider whether the SCN itself was validly issued and the authority could proceed to adjudicate based on the audit report submitted after the stipulated period. Therefore, the matter was admitted, and the authority was restrained from proceeding with the recovery of demand raised until the next date.