Facts of the Case: The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and engaged in SaaS-based student recruitment solutions, provides services to foreign universities and to students seeking admission abroad. GST is discharged on student-facing services, while services rendered to foreign universities are claimed as “export of services” under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017.
The DGGSTI initiated investigation, summoned documents, and recorded statements of the petitioner’s director. Also, notice issued alleging non-payment of GST on intermediary services. Despite the petitioner’s detailed replies, a show-cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act was issued, treating the petitioner’s activities as intermediary services and denying export benefits.
Aggrieved, the petitioner invoked Article 226, contending that the SCN itself contained conclusive findings, leaving nothing for the adjudicating authority to decide, thus making the writ petition maintainable.
Issue: Whether a writ petition challenging a show cause notice under GST is maintainable on the ground that the notice contains adverse and conclusive findings, thereby rendering the adjudication process illusory.
Held That: The Court noted that though the SCN was detailed and exhaustive, containing findings of the Investigating Authority (DGGSTI), such findings were not final and could not bind the Adjudicating Authority.
The Investigating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority are distinct; the latter is a quasi-judicial authority required to adjudicate independently. Reliance placed by the petitioner on Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. was distinguished.
The respondents also undertook that if necessary, the matter could be adjudicated by a higher officer (Additional/Joint Commissioner) to remove apprehensions of bias.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, holding that no interference at the SCN stage was warranted. The Court clarified that the adjudicating authority shall not be influenced by any prima facie findings in the SCN and that the petitioner may seek adjudication before a higher-ranked officer through a written application.
Case Name: M/s STUDY METRO EDU CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY ABHISHEK BAJAJ vs. JOINT DIRECTOR & ORS. Vide WRIT PETITION No. 30467 of 2023 dated 05.08.2025
To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1862
