This compilation indexes nine High Court rulings — spanning October 2023 to April 2026 — in which Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and its State GST counterparts) was centrally or materially engaged. The cases arise from courts across India, including Gauhati, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Patna, Calcutta, Delhi, and Jharkhand High Courts. The compilation is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured, court-wise index of how Section 73 proceedings have been tested at the writ and appellate stages in recent years.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference, not legal or tax advice. Readers must verify each ruling against the full judgment text and check for any subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on it for any purpose.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governs the determination of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised — in cases where the alleged default does not involve fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The section prescribes the issuance of a show cause notice by the proper officer, the time limits within which such notice must be issued and adjudicated, and the manner in which the demand is to be confirmed. It also provides for reduced penalty if the tax due is paid within specified timelines. Section 73 operates in contrast to Section 74, which applies to cases involving fraud or suppression and carries higher penalties and extended limitation periods.

The 9 rulings

1. Commissioner Of Cgst And Excise vs M/S Rishu Enterprise

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 22 April 2026
Sections engaged: 60, 66, 73
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Excise before the Gauhati High Court, bearing Case No. C.Ex.App./6/2025, challenging Final Order No. 75177/2022 dated 08.02.2024 passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata in Service Tax Appeal No. 75509/2022. Per the source preview, the CESTAT had held the appellant's demand for Service Tax to be unsustainable on the ground that the demand had been made merely on the basis of Form 26AS and by invoking an extended period of limitation.

2. M/S. Tera Software Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Bench: Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Date: 11 March 2026
Sections engaged: 12, 122, 142, 15, 151, 73, 74
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6870/2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petition challenged the action of the first respondent in passing proceedings in Form GST DRC-07 dated 15.11.2025 and issuing three separate orders. The matter was heard under the court's special original jurisdiction.

3. M/S Krishi Vistar Kendra vs Union Of India

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 10 March 2026
Sections engaged: 107, 161, 33, 64, 73, 75
Outcome: Revenue succeeded
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The court held that the petitioner had failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and accordingly concluded that the jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be exercised in the circumstances. The revenue's position was thus upheld.

4. M/S Infomart (India) Private Limited vs Asst Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 15 December 2025
Sections engaged: 107(11), 20, 73(1)
Outcome: Remanded for fresh consideration
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 37779 of 2025 before the Karnataka High Court challenging an ex-parte order under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. The court set aside both the original order and the order in appeal and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration, sending the case back to the lower authority for a fresh determination.

5. Siddartha Travels vs Principal Commissioner Of Cgst And

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 24 April 2025
Sections engaged: 25, 73(1), 74(1)
Outcome: Revenue succeeded
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, Siddartha Travels, filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13297 of 2024 before the Patna High Court challenging a demand-cum-show cause notice. The court found no reason to interfere with the demand-cum-show cause notice and the order, and accordingly disposed of the writ application, upholding the department's position.

6. M/S. Venkatrama Constructions vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Bench: Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Date: 19 February 2025
Sections engaged: 142, 73, 74
Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.12.2023 on the ground that it could not have been issued without prior issuance of Form GST DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and also on the ground that the notice did not contain a verifiable DIN number. The first respondent, in its counter affidavit, conceded that the prior notice in Form GST DRC-01A had not been issued. The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the impugned show-cause notice, holding that the prior intimation in Form GST DRC-01A was a mandatory requirement.

7. Dynamic Corporation vs The State Of West Bengal And Others

Bench: Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Date: 3 September 2024
Sections engaged: 107, 11, 73(9)
Outcome: Remanded for fresh consideration
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P.A 17416 of 2024 challenging, inter alia, an order dated 27th February, 2024 passed by the Appellate Authority. Per the source preview, the dispute related to alleged wrongful availment of ITC and mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B for the financial year 2017–2018; the petitioner had contended that a clerical mistake caused reverse charges to be reflected under a different ITC column in GSTR-3B. The Calcutta High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits.

8. M/S. Jindal Trading Co. Through Its vs Union Of India And Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 27 May 2024
Sections engaged: 73
Outcome: Remanded for fresh consideration
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner impugned orders dated 24.12.2023 and 28.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 in W.P.(C) 5966/2024, whereby show cause notices dated 22.09.2023 and 29.09.2023 proposing demands of Rs. 5,35,393/- and Rs. 1,89,65,230/- respectively had been disposed of and demands including penalty were created against the petitioner. The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the show cause notices to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.

9. M/S. Aditya Medisales Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 9 October 2023
Sections engaged: 107, 112, 12, 140(1), 140(3), 140(3)(iii), 142(1), 19, 22, 23, 31, 63
Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P. (T) No. 4338 of 2022 before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. The court allowed the writ application, finding that the proceedings initiated by the respondent were beyond jurisdiction and that the appellate order was perverse. The writ application accordingly stands allowed in favour of the taxpayer.

Patterns across these 9 rulings

Remand as a common judicial response. Across Cases 4, 7, and 8, High Courts from Karnataka, Calcutta, and Delhi each remanded proceedings back to lower authorities for fresh consideration rather than finally deciding the substantive tax demand. This pattern suggests that procedural or adjudicatory defects in the original orders, rather than the merits of the underlying demand, were the operative reason for judicial intervention at the writ stage.
Mandatory pre-notice procedural steps attract strict scrutiny. In Case 6 (Venkatrama Constructions), the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a show-cause notice where the revenue's own counter affidavit conceded that the prior intimation in Form GST DRC-01A had not been issued before issuance of Form GST DRC-01. This indicates that courts are willing to quash notices at threshold where mandatory pre-notice steps are admittedly not followed.
Delay and laches can be fatal to writ petitions even on substantive grounds. In Case 3 (Krishi Vistar Kendra), the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that the petitioner had not availed the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed limitation period. This outcome illustrates the risk of bypassing the statutory appeal route under Section 107 before approaching a High Court.
Extended period of limitation continues to be contested. In Case 1 (Rishu Enterprise), the underlying CESTAT order had found a demand unsustainable where it was premised solely on Form 26AS data and the extended limitation period was invoked by the adjudicating authority. Limitation and the sufficiency of evidence forming the basis of a show-cause notice thus remain recurring battlegrounds.
Section 73 and Section 74 are frequently litigated together. Cases 2, 5, and 6 all involve both sections cited together, reflecting the practical tendency of demand proceedings to raise questions about whether the facts attract the non-fraud route (Section 73) or the fraud/suppression route (Section 74). Courts have engaged with this distinction as part of the challenge to the show-cause notices in these matters.

How to use this compilation

This index is organised by case number, court, and date for easy cross-referencing. When using any entry as a starting point for research, retrieve the full text of the judgment from the source court portal or indiankanoon.org before drawing any conclusions. The text previews reproduced here are partial and may not capture subsequent paragraphs where the court's reasoning is most fully articulated.

Researchers should also verify the current status of each ruling — including whether any Letters Patent Appeal, Special Leave Petition, or intra-court appeal has been filed or decided after the date shown. GST litigation at the High Court level is active, and a favourable first-instance ruling may have been stayed or reversed at a higher forum.

Finally, cross-reference each ruling with the applicable CBIC circulars and instructions in force at the relevant time. Courts frequently note whether departmental instructions (such as those relating to DIN requirements or DRC-01A issuance) were followed, and the circular position at the date of the show-cause notice is often material to the outcome.

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.

Section 73 GST Demand Orders: 9 High Court Rulings (2023–2026)