Andhra Pradesh High Court
For assessee
Topic
Show-cause notices, adjudication orders, limitation and natural justice in demand proceedings.
97 rulings found
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered manufacturer of bakery and confectionery products was subjected to a single composite assessment order for multiple tax periods from 2019 to 2022, issuance of a composite order covering more than one tax period was found impermissible, rendering such order invalid and liable to be set aside, and writ petition challenging composite order was allowed
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was passed against proprietary concern after proprietor's death, with no mandatory personal hearing to legal heirs and widow being unaware of proceedings, such order was void ab initio and lacked legal efficacy, and consequent appellate rejection as time-barred could not stand, entitling quashment of all impugned proceedings and endorsements
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee challenged adjudication, appellate order and recovery proceedings on pure jurisdictional grounds such as competence and absence of cross-empowerment, and such questions involved no disputed facts but raised legal issues, writ petition was maintainable despite existence of an alternate remedy and matter was to be remanded to adjudicating authority for decision on jurisdictional issue first
Gauhati High Court
Where order imposing tax, interest and penalty for FY 2018-19 under Assam GST Act was passed on 30.04.2024 without any State notification extending limitation under Section 168A for said year, statutory period for passing order had expired on 31.12.2023, thus order was time-barred and unsustainable in law and was set aside. GST: Where tax, interest and penalty were imposed under an order that failed to follow Section 75(6) format and was passed without providing assessee opportunity of hearing as prescribed by Section 75(4), breach of statutory procedure vitiated adjudication and such impugned order could not be sustained in law and was set aside
Allahabad High Court
Where registered person's registration was cancelled and show cause notice for demand was served solely by uploading on GST portal, such service was inadequate as petitioner was no longer obligated to check portal, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice and quashing of demand order, with liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law
Kerala High Court
Where respondents issued a single composite show cause notice and summary covering multiple financial years, such composite notice was impermissible warranting quashing of consolidated notice and summary, with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and exclusion of limitation period for reinitiation from issuance of composite notice till receipt of judgment copy
Gujarat High Court
Where ITC recovery was ordered against petitioners based on allegations of non-genuine inward supplies without addressing their detailed replies and documents and without granting an opportunity for personal hearing, passing a cryptic two-line order without reasons violated natural justice requirements, rendering the order unsustainable and necessitating its quashing for decision after proper hearing. GST: Where proceedings for recovery of ITC with interest were initiated without intimating date, time or venue for personal hearing even after reminders, and a cryptic order lacking reasons was passed, failure to provide statutory personal hearing before adverse decision amounted to breach of natural justice, thus vitiating adjudication and rendering impugned order liable to be quashed
Gujarat High Court
Where department issued show cause notice and demand order for alleged fraud against a deceased taxpayer after GSTIN cancellation with nil demand, and petitioner, a housewife unrelated to business, presented death certificate, both SCN and demand order were quashed as issued against deceased, with liberty to proceed per law against petitioner if necessary
Allahabad High Court
Where Tribunal did not notify next hearing date by uploaded judicial order after adjournment but proceeded ex parte without issuing fresh notice, and weekly cause list or administrative orders could not substitute statutory notice requirements under Rule 18, ex parte order was passed without due opportunity and was accordingly set aside with matter remanded
Rajasthan High Court
Where SCN proposing tax demand expressly contemplated personal hearing after reply due date and assessee filed timely reply with written personal hearing request, but officer passed ex parte order without fixing such hearing or considering reply, denial of opportunity breached natural justice and vitiated assessment, mandating setting aside of order and directing fresh proceeding after affording personal hearing
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessee submitted manual reply to SCN within prescribed time and adjudicating authority passed order without considering reply, technical objection regarding non-electronic filing was not accepted and non-appearance on hearing date could not justify ignoring reply, order suffered from gross violation of natural justice and stood vitiated, warranting quashing of order and remand for fresh decision considering reply
Allahabad High Court
Where registered person received notice under section 74 but was not offered any personal hearing, with 'NA' entered for hearing details and adverse order was passed, statutory mandate under section 75(4) for oral hearing before adverse decision was violated, non-filing of written reply did not negate right to oral hearing, making adverse order invalid
Orissa High Court
Where proceedings under section 73 were initiated and concluded against a deceased proprietor despite departmental knowledge of death and registration amendment, and legal heir participated in proceedings, such actions were without jurisdiction and non est, since section 93 mandates liability proceedings against legal representative, thus all corresponding SCNs and orders stood quashed with liberty to initiate proper proceedings against legal heir
Calcutta High Court
Where SCN proposing ITC reversal was issued for discrepancies flagged during relevant period but failed to specify hearing details and was uploaded under 'Additional notices and orders' tab instead of proper portal mode, ex parte order violated principles of natural justice, requiring order to be set aside and matter reconsidered after providing proper hearing opportunity
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where show cause notice under section 74 did not disclose specific reasons and relied-upon documents were not supplied to petitioner, statutory requirement was not fulfilled and denial of opportunity vitiated proceedings, rendering consequent recovery and bank account attachment legally unsustainable and requiring fresh issuance of show cause notice with specific reasons
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where assessment order under Section 73 was passed solely on basis of only a summary show cause notice without a separate notice specifying reasons as mandated, non-compliance with statutory requirements of Section 73 and Rule 142 rendered assessment proceedings unsustainable, resulting in quashing of assessment order and summary notice, with liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner received a consolidated show cause notice and consequential orders for multiple financial years for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, in light of Division Bench rulings prohibiting composite notices for multiple years, such consolidated notice and orders were quashed with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and limitation period adjusted accordingly
Kerala High Court
Where authorities issued a single consolidated show-cause notice and composite order-in-original for multiple financial years regarding tax or ITC not involving fraud, such composite proceedings were invalid, and consolidated notice and order were quashed with liberty to initiate separate proceedings for each financial year
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where partnership firm engaged in works contract services was issued a composite Order-in-Original and Summary in Form GST DRC-07 for two financial years without separate notices for each tax period, such orders covering multiple tax periods were invalid in law and were set aside, as separate adjudications for each period are required under GST law
Allahabad High Court
Where adjudication order demanding tax, interest and penalty exceeded quantum proposed in SCN and introduced grounds beyond notice, action was contrary to statutory mandate that final demand cannot exceed notice amount or rest on grounds beyond notice, thus, impugned order raising higher demand was unsustainable