GST - Karnataka High Court: OIDAR dispute already disclosed in advance rulings and revenue being aware of this fact, extended limitation under Section 74 is inapplicable [Order attached]


The Karnataka High Court has quashed a show cause notice (SCN) issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act against M/s NCS Pearson Inc., a U.S.-based company registered under GST in India. The company, which conducts computer-based tests including the GMAT in India, was accused of willful suppression of facts regarding the classification of its services. The case arose after the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings (AAAR) reversed an earlier ruling, deciding that even tests involving human intervention (Type-III) fall under the category of Online Information Database Access and Retrieval (OIDAR) services, subject to GST.
Despite the company's challenge to this ruling being sub judice in the Karnataka High Court, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) issued the SCN alleging willful suppression and demanding tax payments for Type-III tests conducted between July 2017 and June 2021. The petitioner argued that the SCN was issued without jurisdiction since the issue was already under judicial consideration, and all relevant facts had been disclosed during the AAR and AAAR proceedings.
The court ruled that the tax authorities cannot invoke Section 74 to reopen classification disputes that are already pending in court without clear evidence of suppression or fraud. As all pertinent facts had been disclosed, the extended limitation period under Section 74 was deemed inappropriate. The issuance of the SCN, despite the pending writ petition and interim relief, was found to be contrary to law and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution. Consequently, the SCN and related circulars were quashed to the extent they were found ultra vires.
Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
20-Sep-2025 22:11:19
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a show cause notice (SCN) issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act against M/s NCS Pearson Inc., a U.S.-based company registered under GST in India. The company, which conducts computer-based tests including the GMAT in India, was accused of willful suppression of facts regarding the classification of its services. The case arose after the Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings (AAAR) reversed an earlier ruling, deciding that even tests involving human intervention (Type-III) fall under the category of Online Information Database Access and Retrieval (OIDAR) services, subject to GST.
Despite the company's challenge to this ruling being sub judice in the Karnataka High Court, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) issued the SCN alleging willful suppression and demanding tax payments for Type-III tests conducted between July 2017 and June 2021. The petitioner argued that the SCN was issued without jurisdiction since the issue was already under judicial consideration, and all relevant facts had been disclosed during the AAR and AAAR proceedings.
The court ruled that the tax authorities cannot invoke Section 74 to reopen classification disputes that are already pending in court without clear evidence of suppression or fraud. As all pertinent facts had been disclosed, the extended limitation period under Section 74 was deemed inappropriate. The issuance of the SCN, despite the pending writ petition and interim relief, was found to be contrary to law and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution. Consequently, the SCN and related circulars were quashed to the extent they were found ultra vires.
Order date: 16 July 2025
Parties: M/s NCS Pearson Inc. v. Union of India & Ors.
Facts -
- Petitioner, a U.S.-based GST-registered company, conducts computer-based tests in India, including GMAT. In 2020, AAR held Type-II tests (fully online) fall under OIDAR, but Type-III tests (involving human intervention) do not.
- On appeal, AAAR (13.11.2020) reversed AAR and held even Type-III tests are OIDAR. Petitioner challenged AAAR’s ruling before Karnataka HC in W.P. No. 3555/2021; interim relief granted.
- Despite this, DGGI issued SCN (12.02.2024) under Section 74 CGST Act alleging willful suppression and demanding tax on Type-III tests (July 2017–June 2021).
- Petitioner argued SCN lacked jurisdiction as there was no suppression and the issue was already sub judice.
Issue -
- Whether a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act can be sustained when the department already had full knowledge of the petitioners activities, and classification of services was under judicial consideration?
Order -
- The Court held that Tax authorities cannot use Section 74 to reopen classification disputes already pending in court without clear evidence of suppression or fraud.
- Since AAR/AAAR proceedings had already disclosed all facts, revenue was fully aware; hence, extended limitation under Section 74 could not be invoked.
- Issuance of SCN despite pending writ petition and interim relief was contrary to law and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution.
- The SCN dated 12.02.2024 was quashed, and related circulars/notifications were struck down to the extent found ultra vires.
Related Post
Post Category
- Whether assignment by sale/ transfer of leasehold rights of immovable property is leviable to GST ?
- GST
- Service Tax
- Personal hearing
- Custom
- Excise / VAT / CST
- DGFT / SEZ
- News Updates
- Issue wise cases
- Whether 'purchase price' or 'purchase cost' should be considered for GST payment on margin money for second-hand goods ?
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.

Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation