GST Recovery Cannot Proceed Without Giving Taxpayer Opportunity to Respond to SCN: Gauhati HC [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Gauhati High Court held that GST recovery proceedings cannot proceed without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and that recovery action initiated without such opportunity cannot be sustained in law.

Sri Pulin Borah, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging the recovery notice dated 29 January 2026 issued by the GST authorities. The petitioner also challenged the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST.

The petitioner stated that the grievance arose after he received the recovery notice dated 29 January 2026. According to the petitioner, before receiving this notice he had not received any prior intimation regarding any proceedings against him. The petitioner stated that he became aware of the alleged tax proceeding only after receiving the recovery notice.

After learning about the recovery action, the petitioner submitted a representation, following which a copy of the order was provided to him. The petitioner stated that he had never received the show cause notice or any communication relating to the proceedings before the adjudication order was passed. Because of this, he did not get any opportunity to submit a reply or present his case before the authorities.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was not aware of any adjudication proceeding until the recovery notice was issued. The counsel argued that the recovery proceedings were initiated without serving the show cause notice and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

The petitioner requested the court to set aside the recovery notice and the adjudication order and to direct the authorities to provide a copy of the show cause notice so that he could submit his reply and contest the matter.

The respondents’ counsel argued that the final order dated 08 February 2022 had been issued to the petitioner by registered post. The counsel stated that he did not have instructions regarding whether the notice was actually served upon the petitioner. The respondents also explained that a copy of the order was provided to the petitioner after he submitted a representation.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that there was uncertainty regarding the service of notice and whether the petitioner had received the show cause notice before the adjudication order was passed. The court explained that in such circumstances the petitioner should be given an opportunity to submit his reply to the show cause notice.

The court also observed that instead of keeping the writ petition pending, the interest of justice would be served if the proceedings were directed to be initiated afresh so that the petitioner could participate in the adjudication process.

The court interfered with the recovery notice and directed that the proceedings be initiated afresh after providing the petitioner a copy of the original show cause notice. The petitioner was directed to collect the notice from the office of the respondent authority within one week and file his reply within the time prescribed in the notice.

The court also interfered with the Order-in-Original and clarified that the fresh adjudication would be conducted independently after giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates