Case Law Details
Fanmade11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered two writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging proceedings initiated under the GST laws.
In the first petition, the petitioner sought quashing of Show Cause Notice No. 1204/2025-26 dated 30.09.2025, an interim stay on the proceedings initiated through the show cause notice, a direction restraining the adjudicating authority from passing any order pending disposal of the writ petition, and other appropriate reliefs.
The Supreme Court observed that, in view of its recent judgment in Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (HQS) & Ors. versus Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Ors. etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8241–8244 of 2026 etc.) dated 27.05.2026, it was unnecessary to adjudicate the writ petition on merits. The Court held that the petitioner should appear before the Assessing Officer and, if aggrieved by any final order of assessment, could avail the statutory appellate remedy provided under the relevant Act. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
The Supreme Court also dealt with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 174 of 2026, in which the petitioner sought quashing of a show cause notice dated 31.07.2024, declaration that the proceedings culminating in the notice were contrary to law, prohibition against recovery proceedings, declarations that Rule 31A(3) of the GST Rules was ultra vires Articles 246 and 366(12A) of the Constitution and Sections 7, 9 and 15 of the GST Act, and that Notification No. 3/2018-Central Tax dated 23.01.2018 and Notification No. 30/ST-2 dated 25.01.2018 were ultra vires Sections 15 and 164 of the GST Act.
Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite an interim order of the Supreme Court directing that no coercive steps be taken, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the hearing of the impugned show cause notice and passed a final assessment order determining the petitioner’s tax liability at ₹6.3 crore.
The Supreme Court noted that a final assessment order had already been passed. It held that the petitioner should now avail the statutory appellate remedy under the Act. The Court further observed that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions available in law before the appellate authority, including issues relating to revaluation and pre-deposit. The Court granted four weeks’ time to file an appropriate statutory appeal against the final assessment order.
Accordingly, the second writ petition was also disposed of, and all pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (HQS) & Ors. versus Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Ors. etc. (SC), Civil Appeal Nos. 8241–8244 of 2026 etc., dated 27.05.2026
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The petitioner before us has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(a) Issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the Show Cause Notice No. 1204/2025-26 dated September 30, 2025 issued by Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner.
(b) Pass an order of ad-interim stay, staying the proceedings initiated through Impugned SCN, viz. No. 1204/2025-26 dated September 30, 2025, issued by the Respondent No. 2 and direct Respondent No. 3 to not pass an order before the issues referred in instant petition are decided and refrain from adjudicating the Impugned SCN pending disposal of this writ petition, and thereby render justice.
(c) Pass any such other order granting relief in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. In view of the recent pronouncement of this Court in “DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE (HQS) & ORS. VERSUS GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.” etc. (Civil Appeal Nos.8241–8244 of 2026 etc.) dated 27-5-2026, we need not now adjudicate this petition on merits.
3. The petitioner will have to appear before the Assessing Officer and ultimately if any final order of assessment is passed and the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, they may avail the remedy of Statutory Appeal provided under the Act.
4. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
5. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. P.(C) No. 174/2026:-
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Impugned SCN dated 31.07.2024 issued by Respondent No. 3;
b) Declare the entire proceedings initiated by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner culminating in the Impugned SCN dated 31.07.2024, as contrary to law and quash and set aside the same;
c) Alternatively, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus prohibiting Respondents, their agents and servants from initiating any recovery proceedings with respect to the Impugned SCN;
d) Hold that Rule 31A(3) of the GST Rules is ultra vires Article 246 and Article 366(12A) as well as section 9 read with Section 15 and Section 7 of GST Act;
e) Hold Notification No. 3/2018 – Central Tax dated 23.01.2018 and Notification No. 30/ST-2 dated 25.01.2018 is ultra vires Section 15 and Section 164 of the GST Act
f) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the circumstances of the case.
2. Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that despite there being an interim order passed by this Court that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the hearing of the impugned show cause notice and passed the final order of assessment determining the tax liability of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6.3 Crore.
3. We are of the view that since final order of assessment has already been passed, the petitioner may now prefer an appeal as provided under the Act.
4. It shall also be open for the petitioner to raise all contentions available to them in law before the appellate authority including the issue of revaluation and pre-deposit.
5. We grant four weeks time to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate Statutory Appeal against the final order of assessment.
6. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
