Calcutta High Court
For assessee
Topic
Show-cause notices, adjudication orders, limitation and natural justice in demand proceedings.
48 rulings found
Calcutta High Court
Where tax, interest and penalty demands were raised via SCN and order uploaded only on portal without direct intimation and reply was filed but no personal hearing was afforded before passing ex parte order, principles of natural justice were breached, requiring the adjudication to be quashed and matter reconsidered after granting effective hearing
Delhi High Court
Where registered person was issued adverse order in Form DRC-07 without being given personal hearing, statutory mandate required hearing either on request or whenever adverse decision was contemplated, such order passed without personal hearing was unsustainable and was set aside with directions for fresh decision after affording effective personal hearing
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered taxpayer supplying works contract services to Government Departments was subjected to a single composite assessment order covering multiple years, such composite assessment was impermissible, so the impugned summary order was set aside and respondents could initiate fresh proceedings for each assessment year separately, with all consequential proceedings revoked
Uttarakhand High Court
Where adjudication order determining tax, interest and penalty was passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing, even though petitioner had not opted for personal hearing, once adverse decision was contemplated, obligation to provide personal hearing persisted, thus, impugned order was to be quashed and matter was to be reassessed after granting such opportunity
Madras High Court
Where assessment order and DRC-7 confirmed tax demand exceeding SCN and failed to account for IGST already belatedly paid via GSTR-3B with DRC-7 ignoring such appropriation, demand confirmation was beyond SCN scope and, subject to partial remittance by petitioner, assessment order was set aside for reconsideration post issue of fresh SCN. GST: Where petitioner sought cancellation of GST registration due to business discontinuation and authorities rejected application solely for outstanding tax demand, discontinuation constitutes a valid statutory ground for cancellation and outstanding dues can be recovered post-cancellation, so rejection solely on demand grounds was untenable and authorities must reconsider cancellation as per law
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order confirmed tax, interest and penalty exceeding amount proposed in show-cause notice for April 2017 to March 2018, demand could not exceed SCN amount; matter remanded for fresh response by treating impugned order as SCN
Calcutta High Court
Where order under Section 73 was passed post summary SCN without affording assessee personal hearing and without communicating date, time or venue, requirement of Section 75(4) was infringed, thus order was to be set aside with direction to adjudicate afresh upon deposit of 10 per cent of disputed tax amount as writ was filed belatedly
Calcutta High Court
Where summary SCN and ex parte order were uploaded only under 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab without separate intimation resulting in delayed reply, and personal hearing was not granted despite section 75(4) mandate, cumulative procedural infirmities invalidated adjudication and required reconsideration of reply after affording personal hearing and passing a fresh reasoned order
Kerala High Court
Where revenue issued a composite show cause notice covering multiple years to assessee for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice was impermissible under GST law, and therefore was quashed, with liberty to issue separate year-wise notices for each relevant period
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged adjudication order for July 2017 to March 2018 and no opportunity of hearing was granted despite show cause notice indicating an adverse decision, such order was unsustainable for breach of mandatory hearing requirement under statutory scheme, and matter required remand for fresh decision after granting personal hearing with attachment order quashed
Calcutta High Court
Where adjudication order for tax determination was passed after fixing personal hearing before expiry of reply period, with order uploaded incorrectly on portal and full demand realized by bank attachment, opportunity to respond was not afforded in compliance with statutory requirement, thus adjudication was set aside and consequential actions quashed pending proper reply and personal hearing
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where assessee challenged adjudication order alleging denial of personal hearing before adverse determination, and revenue admitted hearing was not granted, non-grant of hearing violated mandatory statutory requirement under section 75(4), vitiating adjudication, thus impugned order stood set aside and matter to proceed afresh after granting hearing
Kerala High Court
Where a composite show cause notice and consequential order were issued covering multiple financial years for demand of tax or ITC not involving fraud, such composite proceedings were impermissible as per binding Division Bench decisions and both notice and order were to be quashed with liberty to authorities to issue separate notices for each year
Kerala High Court
Where composite show cause notice and order were issued to petitioner covering multiple financial years for tax or ITC not involving fraud, such consolidated proceedings were impermissible as per binding rulings, and composite notices and orders were quashed with liberty to revenue to issue separate notices for each relevant year
Calcutta High Court
Where ex parte adjudication was made for ITC mismatch without verifying eligibility as mandated by Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, and no opportunity for petitioner to respond was given, such assessment was unsustainable and was quashed with matter left for reconsideration in accordance with prescribed verification procedure and principles of natural justice
Allahabad High Court
Where adjudication order under Section 73 imposed penalty not proposed in show-cause notice and confirmed tax demand beyond proposal, such order was without jurisdiction due to violation of statutory bar under Section 75(7), rendering demand exceeding notice amount fundamentally illegal and liable to be set aside
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where a registered firm challenged a single composite assessment order covering multiple periods without separate orders for each period, such composite order was set aside on this ground alone, allowing respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for each period separately if so advised
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner faced SCN and order alleging wrongful ITC under Section 74, but all documents including SCN, order and reminders on portal lacked digital or physical signatures and carried only a reference number, absence of mandated authentication deprived them of legal existence, rendering all actions non est and all such documents and consequential actions were set aside with liberty to proceed afresh as per law. GST: Where SCN and adjudication order alleging wrongful ITC and imposing demand, interest and penalty were only uploaded under Additional Notices And Orders tab without authenticated service, petitioner remained uninformed and was denied opportunity of personal hearing, such violation of statutory mandate and natural justice warranted setting aside of SCN, adjudication order and recovery, regardless of availability of appellate remedy
Allahabad High Court
Where SCN proposed penalty of Rs. 20,000 but adjudication order confirmed penalty of Rs. 96,000, confirmation of penalty beyond proposed amount was in gross violation of section 75(7), rendering order without jurisdiction, requiring setting aside of such order and remand for fresh decision after affording due hearing
Allahabad High Court
Where SCN invoking extended period for tax or ITC involving fraud was issued without detailing statutory ingredients like fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax, continuation of proceedings was unsustainable as jurisdictional preconditions were not disclosed, leading to quashing of SCN with liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law