ADJUDICATION ORDER BEARING CUT AND PASTE REASONS FROM THE SCN NOT VALID UNDER THE LAW
This article is based on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited on 30.06.2025 in Writ Petition (L) No. 12528 of 2025. The Court held that an adjudication order which merely reproduces or “cut and pastes” the reasons from the show cause notice, without independent application of mind, is not valid in law. The article highlights how an order passed without considering the contentions and submissions of the noticee, and without proper discussion on such contentions, cannot be sustained.
The Petitioner filed the Writ Petition against the adjudication order on following grounds:
1. Order passed without application of mind;
2. Non-consideration of detailed submissions canvassed by the Petitioner in its replies;
3. Reasoning in the order is a verbatim copy of the statements in the show cause notice and
4. The so-called reasoning and findings are nothing but an exercise of cutting and pasting statements from the show cause notice.
The extract of observations of the Hon’ble Court are provided as under:
1.The adjudicating authority has failed to independently apply its mind to the various contentions raised in the replies filed on behalf of the Petitioner.
2. The adjudicating authority has chosen to copy or rather cut and paste verbatim the allegations in the show cause notice to pass them of as reasons supporting the impugned order.
3. Any decision made without considering the main contentions or without providing any supporting reasons would be indicative of a lack of application of mind.
4. Simply cutting and pasting the allegations in the show cause notice or mechanically reciting them verbatim does not inspire confidence that due consideration has been shown to the cause, and the decision is made after its due consideration.
5. The provisions “after considering the representation” stated in section 73(9) of the CGST Act implies and requires that the proper officer must apply his or her mind to the representation made and only after that, issue an order. The phrase ‘consider’ does not mean that the contents of the representation are transcribed in the impugned order and without any discussion on the contentions raised, a conclusion is reached.
6. In the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) SCC OnLine SC 178], the Court clarified that ‘consider’ means to contemplate mentally, fix the mind upon, think over, meditate, reflect, give heed, or take note, implying a deliberate, attentive mental process. In Kiranmayi vs. Sri N. Sambasiva Rao [2017 SCC OnLine Hyd. 164], the Court held that ‘consider’ involves careful thought, review and weighing of factors.
7. Section 75(6) of the CGST Act provides that the proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision. The emphasis of this provision is on the ‘basis of decision’. This means the emphasis is on the reasons that support the decision. Merely cutting and pasting the allegations from the show cause notice does not amount to giving any independent reasons after due consideration the assessee’s contentions or after due application of mind to those contentions.
Conclusion
Thus, the adjudication order, having been passed without application of mind and without considering the contentions and submissions made by the Noticee and without giving reasons and grounds rebutting the contentions, submissions and circular etc. as provided by the Noticee in his reply, should be liable for set aside and re-consideration.
*****
Disclaimer: In this article, I have expressed my opinion without challenging anyone or refuting anything. The readers can accept or reject my opinion at their own discussion.
(PARVEEN KUMAR MAHAJAN) Advocate
Author Bio
