Fact of the Case: Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., registered under the CGST/AGST Acts, received a demand-cum-show cause notice (E-File No. GEXCOM/ADJN/GST/ADC/297/2023/2321-23 dated 05.09.2023) under Section 73 alleging wrongful availment and utilisation of ITC of ₹19,51,41,111 for 01.07.2017–31.03.2018, citing mismatch between GSTR-9 and reconciliation in GSTR-9C due to non-filling of Table 14.

Pepsico challenged the SCN as ultra vires for two reasons: (i) the mandatory scrutiny procedure under Section 61 read with Rule 99 (issuance of FORM GST ASMT-10, consideration of reply and ASMT-12) was admittedly not followed; and (ii) Table 14 of GSTR-9C was optional for FY 2017-18 through 2022-23 per CBIC notifications, hence non-furnishing could not be treated as a “discrepancy”. It also argued limitation/SOP constraints and that proceedings could not be remanded. Revenue contended Table 14 was mandatory, relied on Circular 31/05/2018-GST and judgments, and urged alternative remedy. It cited Goverdhandham Estate to bolster the Section 61 precondition argument before 73.

On Table 14, the Court recorded CBIC Notifications 56/2019, 79/2020, 30/2021, 14/2022 and 38/2023 making it optional for FY 2017-18 to 2022-23; Revenue is bound by such instructions. Non-furnishing, therefore, could not be treated as a discrepancy. The objection of alternate remedy failed as the challenge was to jurisdiction. Relying on Goverdhandham Estate (Raj HC), affirmed by dismissal of SLP, the SCN dated 05.09.2023 was quashed with consequential actions set aside. Costs were not awarded by the High Court.

Fact of the Case: A surprise inspection was carried out on the petitioner’s business premises on 10th–11th November 2022. Subsequent show cause notices were issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020–21 and 2021–22. Despite filing replies and attending hearings, the authorities passed orders levying tax, interest, and penalty on 28.02.2024. The petitioner failed to file appeals within the prescribed time, claiming non-receipt of the orders since they were only uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the orders and permission to file appeals beyond the limitation period.

Fact of the Case: M/s Krupa Jewellers, engaged in the jewellery business, challenged an order passed by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 10122/2025, which upheld certain actions of the State Tax authorities. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s findings, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court of India through a Special Leave Petition seeking relief and reconsideration of the High Court’s decision.

The petitioner raised multiple grounds, including procedural and substantive issues regarding the order passed by the authority. During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal before the appellate authority would expire the next day (13.09.2025), and sought an extension to enable filing the appeal.

Additionally, considering the limitation period expiring imminently, the Court extended the time for filing the appeal by four weeks from the date of its order. With this, the SLP was dismissed, and pending applications were also disposed of.

Fact of the Case:  The petitioner, Mudit Gupta, filed a writ petition as the legal heir of deceased Pushpa Gupta, proprietor of M/s M.G. Sarees. Pushpa Gupta passed away on 14.06.2021, and her GST registration was cancelled with effect from 14.06.2022. Despite this, the Department issued four show-cause notices between October 2023 and December 2024 under Section 73 of the GST Act for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21, all in the name of the deceased. Since the registration was already cancelled, the notices uploaded on the portal remained unanswered. Consequently, demand orders totaling approx. ₹68 lakhs were passed in the name of the deceased. The petitioner argued that proceedings against a dead person are void ab initio.

Held by court : The High Court observed that Section 93 of the GST Act only provides for recovery from legal heirs but does not authorize determination of liability against a deceased person. Determination can only be valid when the legal representative is issued a proper show-cause notice. Since the notices and orders were made against the dead person without involving the legal heir, the proceedings were declared void. The court quashed the impugned orders but left liberty with the department to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law against the legal heirs.

Fact of the Case: The case arose from a dispute between the GST Department (Revenue) and M/s Zhuzoor Infratech Pvt. Ltd. over issues relating to tax liability under GST. The assessee had approached the Allahabad High Court through Writ Tax No. 830/2024, challenging certain departmental actions/orders that were adverse to them. The High Court decided in favour of the assessee on 14.02.2025.

Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the High Court’s decision. However, there was a delay of 84 days in filing the petition, for which condonation was sought. The Supreme Court condoned the delay but examined whether the matter merited its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Held by court : The Supreme Court noted that even though the delay in filing was condoned, it was not satisfied that the matter involved any substantial question of law or exceptional circumstance warranting its interference under Article 136. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary and not meant to be invoked in every tax dispute unless there are glaring legal errors.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the SLP, thereby upholding the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in favour of the assessee. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.