GST Officer Violated Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules By Giving 7 Days To Reply To SCN Instead Of 15 Days: Bombay HC Names It As “Undue Haste”

The Bombay High Court has frowned on the GST Officer for violating Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules by giving 7 days to reply to Show Cause Notice (SCN) instead of 15 days and named it as an ‘undue haste’. The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe has stated, “as to why the officers disregard the rules and proceed to pass the order, is something which the higher official or Board would be required to consider, as we are not informed on anything as to why such undue haste is being shown by the officers which causes serious prejudice to the assessee. Such haste thus is completely opposed to the rule of law and as rightly pointed out by Dr. Kantawala that such approach on behalf of the officers apart from causing a serious prejudice to the assessee’s, also generates unwarranted litigation, when not only the mandate of law as contained in Rule 92(3) is clear but also the decisions of this Court amplify this position.” The court while disapproving the act of the officer remarked, “as to how an officer who is supposed to be trained and aware about the mandate of the legal provision, can at all give a complete go-by to the compliance of the statutory rules so as to take a position as if such Rule does not exist when he issued a notice of seven days, completely discarding the further procedure of an opportunity of hearing being made available to the petitioner, and with a haste, immediately passing an order on the next day i.e. on 20 December 2025. Such approach, in our opinion, apart from being arbitrary, is certainly in the teeth of the regime of law as noted hereinabove, as also conducive to the norms of fairness and reasonableness expected from the official machinery.” The petitioner filed refund application dated 14 October 2025 seeking refund of Rs.23,67,56,258/- for the period September 2025, being accumulated ITC on export of goods and services without payment of tax. The application was duly acknowledged on 17 October 2025 in form GST RFD-02. On 13 November 2025, the petitioner by an e-mail addressed to the respondent department, requested for release of the refund claim. In response to the said e-mail, respondent No.4 informed the petitioner by an e-mail dated 3 December 2025 that the petitioner’s e-mail was forwarded to the concerned authority. On 4 December 2025, the petitioner by e-mail addressed to respondent No.4, reiterated the request for release of the refund amount. On 12 December 2025, respondent department issued a show cause notice in Form GST RFD-08 alleging that the petitioner’s suppliers are engaged in the issuance of fake invoices without corresponding supply of goods, based on a purported verification report. The petitioner was given seven days time to respond to the show cause notice. Dr. Sujay Kantawala contended that the mandate of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules has been completely overlooked by respondent officer in passing the order, which contemplates that a notice be issued and an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to furnish a reply within fifteen days from the receipt of such notice and only after considering the reply and after granting an opportunity of a hearing, an order to be passed. The mandatory requirements are given a complete go-by in passing the impugned order. Mr. Ochani, Counsel appearing for the department contended that filed on behalf of the respondent of Shri. Shivaji M. Suralkar, Assistant Commissioner, CGST and C. C. Ex. Nashik-II Division, justifying the order, as the deponent of the affidavit itself has passed the order. On perusal of the affidavit, it appears that the only contention as urged by the officer is that the petitioner ought to have filed reply on portal and ought not to have filed through e-mail, and therefore, it was presumed that no reply was filed by the petitioner, and for such reason no personal hearing was needed by the petitioner, is the reply. The court while favouring the petitioner noted that agreement with the petitioner that there is a specific requirement under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules that a notice be issued in Form GST RFD-09, on which a time of fifteen days, be made available to the persons to whom it is issued to reply, and only after considering the reply, if any, filed within a period of fifteen days, and after an opportunity of hearing being granted, an order on such notice can be passed. However, it is surprising to note as to how and on what basis respondent officer could issue a show cause notice in question and provide seven days time to file reply to the show cause notice. The court stated that the officer has taken on himself to sideline the Rule to exercise discretion contrary to the requirement of the rule, by substituting the period of filing reply from fifteen days to seven days. Thus, the notice itself to that effect was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules. The court held that approach on behalf of the officers apart from causing a serious prejudice to the assessee’s, also generates unwarranted litigation, when not only the mandate of law as contained in Rule 92(3) is clear but also the decisions of this Court amplify this position. The court directed the officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner as per the mandate of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules and in the event a reply to the said notice is received, the petitioner be granted an opportunity of hearing and fresh order needs to be passed in accordance with law. Case Details Case Title: Golden Cryo Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors. Citation: JURISHOUR-534-HC-2026(BOM) Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 1268 OF 2026 Date: 12/03/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Dr.Sujay Kantawala with Mr. Anupam Dighe and Ms. Renita Alex & Ms. Chandni Tanna i/b. India Law Alliance Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Ochani Click Here To Read Order Read More: Customs and Indirect Taxes | 669 Assistant Commissioner Grade Officers Transferred & Posted: CHECK LIST

GST Officer Violated Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules By Giving 7 Days To Reply To SCN Instead Of 15 Days: Bombay HC Names It As “Undue Haste”

Membership Required

Latest articles

SARFAESI Pre-Deposit Not Mandatory for Appeals Against Purely Procedural DRT Orders: Bombay High Court

Municipal Body Can’t Seal Property for Non-Payment of Property Tax: Bombay High Court Orders Unsealing of 75-Year-Old Vada Pav Vendor’s Shop

Leave Encashment Earned During Central Government Service Eligible for Full Tax Exemption: CIT(A) [READ ORDER]

Cabinet Approves Repatriation of IRS Officer Manoj Kumar to Parent Cadre on Personal Grounds

More like this

SARFAESI Pre-Deposit Not Mandatory for Appeals Against Purely Procedural DRT Orders: Bombay High Court

Municipal Body Can’t Seal Property for Non-Payment of Property Tax: Bombay High Court Orders Unsealing of 75-Year-Old Vada Pav Vendor’s Shop

Leave Encashment Earned During Central Government Service Eligible for Full Tax Exemption: CIT(A) [READ ORDER]

About us

Company

Categories