The ruling in brief
Where GST-registered partnership challenged demand raised on grounds of non-consideration of reply to SCN involving allegations of suppression, since full opportunity to contest was provided and disputes pertained to merits involving record appraisal, remedy lay with appellate authority and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not warranted, thus writ petition was not maintainable
Where petitioner was issued a consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years for alleged fraud under audit, statutory provisions did not require separate notices per year and allowed composite notices, especially where patterns over years were relevant, so mere consolidation of demand periods did not render such notice jurisdictionally defective or warrant writ interference, though limitation objections for any year required fact-based appellate examination
Provisions considered
Section 74, read with sections 65 and 75, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 74, read with section 73, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.