The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by JSW Techno Projects Management Limited challenging a show-cause notice issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, observing that the company appeared to be attempting to delay adjudication proceedings rather than address the core tax issues.
The division bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna delivered the judgment on October 9, 2025, rejecting the company’s plea against the Rejection Letter dated August 21, 2025, which had turned down its request for rectification of an alleged “error apparent on the face of record” in a show-cause notice dated June 30, 2025.
Counsel for JSW Techno Projects, Mr. Vipin Kumar Jain, argued that the show-cause notice failed to account for taxes already paid by the company, constituting a clear error. The firm had sought rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act, which allows correction of apparent errors in notices or orders. The petitioner further alleged violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, invoking the Supreme Court’s ruling in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate, which restricts overlapping investigations by different authorities.
The bench, however, found no merit in the petition, clarifying that Section 161 applies to errors in finalized decisions or orders—not preliminary show-cause notices that invite a response.
“Any error in the show-cause notice can be addressed by filing a detailed response. Using Section 161 to amend such a notice is inappropriate and seems designed to delay the adjudication process,” the court observed.
The judges emphasized that the notice itself imposes no liability and that the petitioner retains full opportunity to contest the allegations during adjudication.
The Court also criticized the growing trend of taxpayers filing premature writ petitions to stall proceedings, remarking that such tactics exploit the judicial process amid already burdened dockets.
“This petition appears to have been filed merely to take a chance and secure interim relief to delay adjudication,” the bench said, referencing its earlier ruling in Oberoi Constructions Ltd. v. Union of India.
The bench noted that JSW Techno Projects’ claim involved disputed questions regarding whether free-of-cost supplies like water and power should be included in the taxable value of services under Section 15(2)(b) of the CGST Act and a March 2018 CBIC circular. Such interpretational matters, the judges said, could not be treated as “errors apparent” suitable for rectification under Section 161.
The Court further clarified that the petitioner was free to raise these arguments in its formal reply to the show-cause notice, and that the adjudicating authority was expected to consider them fairly.
While dismissing the petition, the High Court refrained from imposing monetary costs but noted that the company had “taken a chance” by filing the plea. The bench suggested that JSW Techno Projects may voluntarily contribute Rs. 1 lakh to KEM Hospital, Mumbai, as part of its corporate social responsibility (CSR), though it stressed that this was not a directive.
“We were inclined to impose costs but refrained at the persuasion of counsel. The petitioner should, on its own, consider offering an amount to KEM Hospital,” the order read.
Case Details
Case Title: JSW Techno Projects Management Limited And Anr. Versus Union of India And Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (L) No. 30130 Of 2025
Date: 09 October 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Vipin Kumar Jain
Counsel For Respondent: Ram Ochani
