The Madras High Court, in M/s Antony Projects v. Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Writ Petition No.42706 of 2025, decided on 12.11.2025, examined the maintainability of a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under the Goods and Services Tax regime. The dispute arose from alleged belated availment of Input Tax Credit and the applicability of extended statutory deadlines. The Court’s ruling focuses on the scope of writ jurisdiction at the pre-adjudication stage and the relevance of alternative statutory remedies.
FACTS
M/s Antony Projects (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”), a GST-registered proprietary concern, challenged a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”) dated 30.05.2024 issued by the Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Vadapalani II Range, Chennai South Commissionerate (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”). The SCN sought:
- Recovery of ₹10,962 (CGST ₹5,481; SGST ₹5,481) said to be irregularly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
- Interest under Section 50(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
- Penalty under Section 73(1) read with Section 122(2)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The grievance was that the SCN treated 28.10.2020 as the last date for filing GSTR-3B returns and availing ITC, whereas the petitioner relied on subsequent statutory amendments (Sections 16(4) and 16(5) of the CGST Act) based on GST Council decisions, extending the ITC deadline to 30.11.2021. Instead of filing a response to the SCN and engaging in adjudication, the petitioner directly invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the SCN itself.
ISSUES
- Whether the High Court can quash a Show Cause Notice at the pre-adjudication stage under Article 226?
- Whether the petitioner could challenge the SCN based on the extended ITC deadline, without participating in adjudication?
- Whether the SCN suffers from any jurisdictional or legal infirmity that warrants interference at the writ stage?
CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES
The Petitioner contended that the SCN was unsustainable as it relied on an incorrect deadline for availing ITC and failed to consider statutory amendments extending the deadline, effective November 2021. Reliance was placed on Madras High Court decisions recognising the extended timeline recommended by the 53rd GST Council Meeting and subsequently approved by the President. The extended deadline applies to returns for the relevant financial years. The Petitioner further contended that the SCN was therefore legally flawed and required to be quashed.
The Respondent on the other hand contended that the writ was premature and not maintainable since the SCN was only a proposal to initiate adjudication and did not result in a final adverse order. The Respondent further contended that the Petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy, which involved filing a reply, participating in adjudication, and pursuing appeals under Sections 73/74 and Section 107 of the GST Act. No jurisdictional infirmity had been demonstrated justifying pre-adjudication interference.
DECISIONS AND FINDINGS
The High Court held that a SCN under the GST Act is a procedural proposal to initiate adjudication, not a final order. High Courts generally do not interfere at this stage unless the notice is shown to be without jurisdiction or palpably time-barred. A writ challenge at the SCN stage is premature, as the statute provides a complete machinery for adjudication and subsequent appeals. The petitioner must first participate in the adjudication process before approaching the High Court.
The Court emphasised that the Petitioner had an effective statutory remedy. All legal and factual issues, including reliance on the extended ITC deadline, could and should be raised before the adjudicating authority. Once a final order is passed, the petitioner could pursue appeal remedies.
The High Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the substantive dispute regarding ITC admissibility. It only addressed procedural maintainability and alternative remedy availability.
The Petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply to the SCN within 30 days and engage in adjudication. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider all submissions on merits and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition as premature and unwarranted at the SCN stage. It reaffirmed well-settled legal principles that:
- A Show Cause Notice issued under the GST Act cannot be quashed before adjudication unless it is without jurisdiction on its face.
- The existence of statutory remedies (reply to SCN, adjudication, appeals) requires taxpayers to exhaust those remedies before seeking writ relief.
- Legal defences, including those based on subsequent statutory amendments, must first be presented during the adjudication process.
This decision upholds procedural propriety in tax litigation and underscores the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction.
AMLEGALS REMARKS
The decision reaffirms the settled principle that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with show cause notices issued under fiscal statutes. Even where subsequent statutory amendments may support the assessee’s case, such issues are required to be examined by the adjudicating authority in the first instance. By dismissing the writ as premature while preserving the petitioner’s right to raise all legal defences during adjudication, the Court maintained procedural discipline under the GST framework and upheld the efficacy of the statutory remedy mechanism.
In case of any query, please feel free to reach out to hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com