SC Directs Petitioner to Pursue Section 107 GST Appeal

Case Details: Bengal Cold Rollers (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 1047 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
• Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv., Karan Sachdev, Somesh Jain, Ms Disha Jham, Sumit Khadaria, Vedant Kholi, Naman Tandon, Siddharth Mishra, Kumar Nikhil, P.D.V. Srikar, Karan Sachdev, Sumit Khadaria, Ms Disha Jain, Ms Parvati Nambiar, Advs., Rahul Gupta & Devi Venkata Srikar Pagadala, AOR’s for the Petitioner.
• Devina Sehgal, Devina Sehgal, Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Rahul Gupta, AORs, Yatharth Kansal, Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Swaroop Oorilla, Vishnu Kanth Mundada, Arpit Kumar Mishra, Shadab Azhar, Advs., N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., T. Rajnikanth Reddy, A.A.G., Ms Kranthi Boda, Asstt. Commissioner, Ms Deepa Reddy, Ms Vasavi Jagannath, Addl. Commissioners, T.V. Prasad, Deputy State Tax Officer & S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged assessment proceedings on the ground that 14 files seized during a GST search were not furnished by the department. According to the petitioner, the missing files contained invoices and other documents necessary to respond to allegations of fraudulent transactions and issuance of bogus invoices contained in the show cause notices. During the pendency of the proceedings, final assessment orders were passed for all the relevant assessment years. The department contended that the seized files were not relied upon while framing the assessments and therefore no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that since final assessment orders had already been passed, the petitioner was required to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. It was observed that the petitioner had reached a stage where the challenge to the assessments could appropriately be pursued only before the appellate authority. The Court further held that the grievance regarding non-availability of the 14 seized files and the prejudice allegedly caused thereby could be raised before the appellate authority, which would examine the issue independently and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy, subject to the prescribed pre-deposit, and the Special Leave Petition was disposed of.