The Bombay High Court in the case of GLOBEOP FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER MERGER OF GLOBEOP FINANCIAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED WITH GLOBEOP FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, MUMBAI, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, UNION OF INDIA vide WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 12528 OF 2025 dated 30.06.2025, reiterated that quasi-judicial orders under GST law must reflect independent application of mind, and mechanical adjudication based on SCNs is impermissible. Further, mere cutting and pasting the allegations from the show cause notice does not amount to giving any independent reasons.
Facts of the Case: In this case, the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 28 November 2024 raising a GST demand of ₹193.82 crore for the period April 2020 to March 2021, primarily on the ground that services rendered by the petitioner were in the nature of “intermediary services” and therefore not eligible for export classification under GST law.
The Petitioner filed detailed replies dated 27 January 2025 and 6 February 2025, citing factual distinctions, relying on judicial precedents and CBIC Circular dated 20.09.2021 supporting its claim that services rendered qualify as exports and not intermediary services. Despite these elaborate responses, the impugned adjudication order lifted entire paragraphs from the SCN verbatim without independently evaluating the taxpayer’s rebuttals or the legal authorities cited.
A comparison chart presented by the Petitioner showed a side-by-side similarity between the SCN and the adjudication order, highlighting a cut-and-paste approach by the authority. Thus, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition alleging that the impugned order is a verbatim copy reproduction of SCN and the authorities did not consider or discuss the legal submissions or precedents cited.
Issue: Whether the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind by merely reproducing SCN allegations without independent reasoning.
Held that: The Court found that the adjudicating authority copied contents from the SCN verbatim, including factual allegations and legal assertions, without independent evaluation. A comparative chart submitted by the Petitioner showed a word-for-word repetition between the SCN and impugned order, demonstrating lack of application of mind.
The Court cited the decision in Piramal Enterprises Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held that copy-pasting from another authority’s notice/order was held as indicative of unreasoned adjudication and invalidated the order on similar grounds.
Section 73(9) of the CGST Act requires the proper officer to “consider the representation” before passing the order. “Consider” means deliberate examination, not just reproducing representations or allegations. Further, Section 75(6) mandates the officer to state the “basis of the decision”. This means giving reasons, not a copy-paste recital.
The Court held that impersonal reproduction of SCN contents in the final adjudication order without dealing with the taxpayer’s detailed replies constitutes non-application of mind. The principles of natural justice were violated, and hence the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 need not be exhausted, as this was a clear case of procedural violation.
The Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision.
To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1418
