The Bombay High Court has held that the GST orders must show independent reasoning and not just a Copy-Paste from show cause notice.

The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain have observed that Section 75(6) of the CGST Act provides that the proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision. The emphasis of this provision is on the ‘basis of decision ’. This means the emphasis is on the reasons that support the decision. Merely cutting and pasting the allegations from the show cause notice does not amount to giving any independent reasons after  due consideration the assessee’s contentions or after due application of  mind to those contentions. 

The petitioner has challenged the order issued by the First Respondent, to the extent that it  confirms the GST demand of Rs 70,57,98,2018/- for the period April 2020 – March 2021.

The Petitioner submitted that the order is vitiated by non-application of mind, non-consideration of detailed submissions canvassed by the Petitioner in its replies dated 27 January 2025 and 6 February 2025.

The Petitioner pointed out that the so-called reasoning in the impugned order is a verbatim copy of the statements in the show cause notice. He handed in the chart to demonstrate that the so-called reasoning and findings are nothing but an exercise of cutting and pasting statements from the show cause notice. On this ground, the order may be quashed and set aside without relegating the Petitioner to avail up the alternate remedy. 

The court held that this is a case of complete non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural 

justice, there is no point in directing the Petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal. A clear breach of natural justice is an exception to the general rule that statutory remedies should usually be exhausted before seeking this Court’s extraordinary intervention. In any event, we do not intend to annul the impugned order on its substance. 

The court intervened because the decision-making process involved a breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play. 

Case Details

Case Title: GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

Case No.: Writ Petition (L) No.12528 Of 2025 

Date: 30 June 2025

Counsel For  Petitioner:  Rohan Shah, Senior Advocate 

Counsel For Respondent: Prachi Tatake

Read More: Bombay High Court Orders DGFT to Process MEIS Claims Despite Technical Glitches