This compilation indexes twelve writ petitions decided by Indian High Courts in 2026 in which petitioners challenged adjudication orders or show cause notices issued under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. The matters span Karnataka, Madras, Jharkhand, and Bombay High Courts and arise in the context of a range of procedural and substantive disputes, including ex parte orders, input tax credit disallowances, limitation extensions, and natural justice grievances. This index is intended for use by in-house GST teams, Big-4 tax associates, and law firm researchers tracking the evolving judicial treatment of Section 73(9) adjudication orders across High Courts.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference tool. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation of any course of action. Readers must verify each ruling against the full judgment text and check for any subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on any entry.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and its mirror provisions in State GST enactments) governs the determination of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, in cases not involving fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Sub-section (9) of Section 73 empowers the proper officer, after considering the representation made by the person chargeable with tax, to determine the amount of tax, interest, and penalty due from such person by issuing an order. The order under Section 73(9) is distinct from the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) and represents the final adjudication at the first instance. The statutory framework prescribes time limits for issuance of the order and mandates that the person concerned be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is passed.

The 12 rulings

1. M/S Sharanagouda M Siddareddy Civil vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit)

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 3 July 2026
Sections engaged: 50, 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) as WP No. 201807 of 2026 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner — a civil contractor — sought to quash a show cause notice bearing No. CTO/A/SHP/2023-24/DRC-01 dated 30.09.2023 issued by the first respondent, as well as the adjudication order bearing No. CTO/A/SHP/GST/DRC-7/2023-24/466 dated 29.12.2023, and to set aside an appellate order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the second respondent.

2. M/S. Aditya Security Force vs The Assistant Commissioner Of

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 22 June 2026
Sections engaged: 73(7), 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 105019 of 2026) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner sought to quash ex parte impugned orders both dated 21.05.2025, bearing Nos. ACCT(AUDIT)-2/HPT/GST-ADJN/ORDER-/2025-26/T, for the tax periods 2021-22 and 2022-23, passed by the first respondent.

3. Tvl.Narumanam Spices vs The Superintendent Of Cgst And Central

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 1 June 2026
Sections engaged: 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(MD)No.13982 of 2026) was filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner challenged the impugned order No. MDU-GST-DG2-SP-27-2025 dated 12.12.2025 for the assessment year 2021-22, seeking to quash the same on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions; the assessment order was passed ex parte because, per the source preview, the petitioner did not utilise the opportunity afforded.

4. Nadagouda Roadlines Pvt Ltd vs Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 12 May 2026
Sections engaged: 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 201937 of 2026) was filed before the Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner sought to quash a show cause notice dated 20-02-2025 bearing No. ACCT/(A)/BGK/AO/73/2024-25/B-932 issued by the first respondent, and also to quash the order dated 04.05.2026 passed in Appeal No. GST/-927/2025-26 by the second respondent.

5. Surajmal Jalan Road vs Union Of India

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 6 May 2026
Sections engaged: 16(4), 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(T) No. 3036 of 2026) was filed before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. Per the source preview, the actual petitioner entity is M/s. Emotions Transmission Pvt. Ltd., a company having its office at Seth Surajmal Jalan Road, Town Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand, represented through one of its Directors. The matter was heard before a Division Bench and involved the Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise authorities at Ranchi and Deoghar.

6. Doulathray S Marnoor vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 16 April 2026
Sections engaged: 73(9), 16(4), 16(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 200771 of 2026) was filed before the Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner — a contractor — sought to quash an adjudication order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act by the respondent for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, and further sought a direction that in the event of remand, de-novo adjudication be conducted strictly in accordance with law, with a specific notice of personal hearing and a reasonable opportunity to produce documents and make oral and written submissions.

7. M/S Shiva Sai Traders vs The Assistant Commissioner Of

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 8 April 2026
Sections engaged: 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 201477 of 2026) was filed before the Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner sought to quash an Order in Original (OIO) passed under Section 73(9) of the Act dated 15.02.2025 vide No. ACCT-LGSTO-530/RCR/ORDER-73/2024-25/3731 passed by the respondent authorities.

8. M/S Nirmithi Kendra vs The Union Of India

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 7 April 2026
Sections engaged: 73(9), 74(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 201097 of 2026) was filed before the Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner entity — represented through its Project Manager — arrayed multiple respondents including the Union of India (Department of Revenue), the State of Karnataka (Commercial Taxes Department), the GST Council, the Commissioner of Central Tax (Audit) and Central Excise (Gulbarga Division), and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-2), DGSTO, Kalaburagi, reflecting the dual GST structure engaged in the proceedings.

9. Refex Industries Limited vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 25 March 2026
Sections engaged: 168A, 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (Writ Petition (L) No. 10353 of 2026) was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Per the source preview, the petitioner challenged, inter alia, a Notification dated 28th December 2023 issued by the respondent in exercise of its powers; the court's attention was also drawn to a recent order passed in Rite Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 1443 of 2025, dated 25th February 2026, which in turn followed an earlier order of a Co-ordinate Bench in Shyam Udyog vs. Union of India & Ors.

10. M/S Anchor Shipping Services vs Assistant Commissioner

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 20 February 2026
Sections engaged: 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 100359 of 2026, connected with WP No. 100771 of 2026) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner — a proprietorship bearing GSTIN 29AAHPP4721A1ZX — sought a writ of certiorari declaring the impugned ex parte order bearing No. ACCT/LGSTO-500/HPT/ORDER(18-19)/533/2024-25 dated 12.04.2024 and the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 as illegal.

11. M/S. Ratna Cafe vs The Assistant Commissioner

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 2 February 2026
Sections engaged: 73(1), 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 3723 of 2026) was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order in original bearing Reference No. CHE-GST-AC-26/2024-25 dated 26.07.2024 passed by the first respondent, and further sought a direction to lift an attachment placed on their bank account bearing No. 512120020032708 maintained with City Union Bank, Triplicane Branch; the matter was disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of counsel for both sides.

12. M/S. Jaydeep Enterprises vs State Of Karnataka

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 29 January 2026
Sections engaged: 73(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 1541 of 2026) was filed before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioner — a proprietorship concern — sought to declare as illegal a show cause notice No. ACCT.LGSTO-62/3B-R9/DRC-01/2024-25 dated 25.11.2024 issued in Form GST DRC-01, along with the Summary of Show Cause Notice Reference No. ZD291124121159J dated 25.11.2024 issued in Form GST DRC-01A; Canara Bank was arrayed as the third respondent, indicating a bank attachment dimension to the proceedings.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Predominance of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. Across all twelve cases in this compilation, taxpayers bypassed or had exhausted the appellate remedy under the GST statute and approached High Courts directly by way of writ petitions seeking certiorari or certiorarified mandamus. This reflects a recurring litigation posture where procedural infirmities in the adjudication process are used as the gateway to constitutional court intervention.
Ex parte adjudication as a recurring trigger. At least three cases in this compilation — M/S. Aditya Security Force (case 2), Tvl. Narumanam Spices (case 3), and M/S Anchor Shipping Services (case 10) — expressly involve challenges to ex parte orders passed under the GST adjudication framework, suggesting that non-participation or non-receipt of notices by taxpayers ahead of Section 73(9) orders is a recurring procedural grievance driving High Court litigation.
Bank attachment as an ancillary grievance. Two cases in the compilation — M/S. Ratna Cafe (case 11) and M/S. Jaydeep Enterprises (case 12) — involve prayers to lift or challenge bank attachments flowing from or connected to Section 73(9) orders, indicating that enforcement action consequent to adjudication is a significant driver of writ proceedings alongside the challenge to the order itself.
Multi-section engagement alongside Section 73(9). Several petitions engage additional provisions alongside Section 73(9): Section 16(4) and 16(5) (input tax credit time-limit and amendment provisions) appear in cases 5 and 6; Section 168A (extension of limitation) appears in case 9; and Section 74(1) (fraud-based demand) appears alongside Section 73(9) in case 8. This pattern suggests that adjudication orders are frequently contested on grounds that the correct provision was not applied or that the limitation period was not validly extended.
Karnataka High Court as the dominant forum. Nine of the twelve rulings in this compilation originate from Karnataka High Courts (Kalaburagi Bench, Dharwad Bench, and the principal Bengaluru Bench), with Madras High Court accounting for two and Bombay and Jharkhand High Courts accounting for one each. This concentration may reflect the volume of GST adjudications and the pace of enforcement actions in Karnataka, or the procedural accessibility of writ jurisdiction in that forum, and is a useful data point for practitioners benchmarking jurisdictional trends.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is structured as a first-pass research index. Each entry identifies the forum, date, sections engaged, and the procedural posture of the petition as disclosed in the source preview. Because all twelve source previews are drawn from the caption and prayer portions of the respective orders — and not from the operative reasoning or the dispositive paragraph — readers must retrieve and review the full text of each judgment before drawing any conclusions about the legal principles applied, the relief granted, or the ratio of the decision. The absence of an "Outcome" field for any case in this index means the outcome was not determinable from the source data available at the time of compilation, not that the case was undecided.

Researchers should also verify whether any of these orders have been subsequently stayed, modified, or reversed in appeal or review proceedings. Writ petitions of this nature frequently result in interim orders (such as stays on recovery or on enforcement of bank attachments) which may differ materially from the final disposal; neither interim orders nor final orders can be assumed from this index. Where a case has been tagged with multiple sections (such as Section 168A alongside Section 73(9)), practitioners should examine the full judgment to understand which section formed the primary basis for the court's reasoning.

Finally, CBDT and CBIC circulars, as well as GST Council recommendations, may have issued instructions relevant to the procedural points raised in these petitions — particularly those concerning limitation extensions and the conduct of ex parte proceedings. Cross-referencing this case index with current CBIC circulars and any applicable Tribunal orders is strongly recommended before using any ruling for compliance or advisory purposes.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

GST Section 73(9) Adjudication Orders: 12 High Court Writ Rulings (2026)