Delhi High Court
For revenue
Topic
Show-cause notices, adjudication orders, limitation and natural justice in demand proceedings.
18 rulings found
Delhi High Court
Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee challenged Section 73 proceedings alleging non-service of statutory notice for wrongful ITC, but record showed service of a detailed demand- cum-show-cause notice for the relevant period, contention of absence of notice was unfounded and proceeding was not without jurisdiction, with any residual grievances to be adjudicated in statutory appeal. GST: Where assessee challenged unsigned and allegedly defective Form GST DRC- 07 electronic summary regarding period and quantum, such electronic defects alone did not affect jurisdiction of adjudication order, as summary cannot substitute main adjudication, and any inconsistency among notice, order, and summary must be tested on facts and can be redressed through statutory appeal. GST: Where assessee challenged imposition of interest and penalty as exceeding show-cause notice for period July 2017 to March 2018 invoking section 75(7), since determination of whether order exceeded notice required conjoint examination of notice and order, mere assertion did not warrant writ interference and remedy could be pursued before appellate authority. GST: Where assessee alleged denial of hearing during demand adjudication for July 2017 to March 2018 but records showed service of demand-cum-show-cause and no reply from assessee nor any material indicating exclusion from adjudicatory process, non-compliance with Section 75 could be addressed in statutory appeal and no ground for extraordinary interference was established.…
Delhi High Court
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 GST: 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
Allahabad High Court
Where adjudication order under Section 73 was challenged for being non- speaking and for non-consideration of reply regarding mismatch between GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A and GSTR-9, since authority considered assessee's reconciliation reply and hearing, and burden to reconcile ITC claimed was not discharged by mere chart without explanation, writ remedy was not maintainable and statutory appeal could be pursued
Gauhati High Court
Where DGGI officer issued a consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice covering multiple financial years under CGST regime and petitioners challenged permissibility of such consolidation after not filing a reply, since law as per Tata Projects Ltd. permits consolidated notices and adjudication for multiple periods, writ challenge to such consolidated notice was not maintainable. GST: Where petitioners received consolidated show cause notice for tax or ITC not involving fraud and failed to reply before seeking writ remedy nearly a year later, since initiation under general or fraud-based provisions is fact-specific and determination of fraud requires factual examination, writ jurisdiction was not maintainable at notice stage and parties must pursue statutory adjudication and appeals
Gauhati High Court
Where Proper Officer issued a consolidated show cause notice and passed a single order covering multiple financial years for confirming tax, interest and penalty, issuance of such consolidated notice and order was within jurisdiction and authority, and challenge to competence on this ground was not sustainable with merits of the order left open for statutory appeal
Patna High Court
Where petitioner, a medicine trader, failed to file returns for 2020-2021 and was assessed for tax and late fee after show cause notice, demand of late fee through assessment proceedings under section 73 read with section 47, being a statutory mandate, was valid and enforceable and writ challenging such competence was to be dismissed as devoid of merit
Calcutta High Court
Limitation period applies to passing of adjudication order, not to its service; an adjudication order digitally signed within limitation period remains valid even if uploaded and served beyond limitation period and said order would become enforceable only upon such service
Patna High Court
Where assessee registered in multiple states leased parking spaces and paid license fee under reverse charge, and proper officer at Chandigarh passed order raising demand, writ challenging such order lies only before forum with appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over Chandigarh authority, thus, Patna High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ and remedy was to be sought before appropriate forum
Madras High Court
Where legal heir of deceased proprietor whose business was discontinued and GST registration cancelled was issued demand for tax, interest and penalty for non-filing of returns relating to period prior to death, recovery could proceed against legal heir under liability provisions, with adjudication permissible post-death, but liability restricted only to extent of inherited estate
Karnataka High Court
Contractual entitlement to reimbursement of incremental GST cannot alter statutory GST provisions and GST authorities cannot be directed to permit revised returns or waive interest, penalty, or limitation on that basis; such reimbursement dispute lies only between contractor and employer
Madras High Court
Where petitioner failed to respond to requests for information and show cause notices regarding possible non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful ITC, non-response amounted to suppression to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation and initiation of proceedings under Section 74; hence ex parte orders were warranted in absence of substantive reply, but matter remitted for de novo adjudication. GST: Where DRC-01A intimations and notices were issued for tax periods 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 after scrutiny and no replies were filed, ex parte orders confirming proposals were within limitation under Sections 73 and 74, and Appellate Authority could convert to Section 73 proceedings if Section 74 was wrongly invoked, provided proper reply to DRC-01 was available
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioners received consolidated SCNs as also consolidated orders covering multiple years under sections 73/74, such composite notices and orders were valid as statutes do not mandate FY-wise segregation and there was no statutory bar and limitation principles would apply period-wise; and jurisdiction was not defeated absent Article 14 or limitation breach
Madras High Court
Where assessee availed and utilized excess ITC over GSTR-2A figures and failed to pay reverse charge tax on foreign agency commissions, such acts constituted wrongful availment and suppression with intent to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation under Section 74 GST: Orders passed in November 2024 under Section 73 for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were within limitation, as statutory extensions governed computation of time, and limitation issue stood concluded by binding precedent
Madras High Court
Where assessees challenged demands raised invoking extended-period on ground that there was lack of foundational facts in show cause notices, in view of fact that prior communications like scrutiny, audit or inspection had already conveyed requisite reasons and facts, invocation of extended-period was valid; absence of reasons in show cause notice alone was not fatal if jurisdictional facts were discernible from earlier communications or on record, subject to prima facie satisfaction under section 74. GST: Where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is not established, proceedings initiated under Section 74 need not fail but may be converted into Section 73 proceedings; such conversion preserves valid tax demands while excluding consequences dependent on extended-period ingredients. GST: Where central authorities issued consolidated show cause notices spanning multiple years and parties disputed permissibility of such composite notices, consolidated SCNs covering multiple periods were deemed valid, as normal and extended-period demands were not tax-period specific and statute did not prohibit common SCNs for multiple periods GST: Where assessee, on being inspected for multiple years and issued DRC-01A and DRC-01 alleging fraud, non-cooperation, documentation lapses and failures to provide financials, challenged show cause notices as pre-determined, since GST scheme allows communication of reasons throughout proceedings and detailed SCN was intended to enable assessee for rebuttal, writ challenge was not maintainable and merits had to be adjudicated in their own course.…
Madras High Court
Where SCNs alleging tax or ITC fraud for periods 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 were issued in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 74 prior to expiry of statutory limitation and after issuance of DRC-01A intimation, challenge on limitation was untenable as statutory timelines were complied with, and SCNs therefore survived. GST: Where petitioner failed to reply to DRC-01A in respect of 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020 leading to non-cooperation and suppression under Explanation-2, invocation of Section 74 machinery was justified and, with disputed facts involved, remedy lay in adjudication by replying to SCNs rather than writ, so writ petitions seeking quash were not maintainable
Madras High Court
Where petitioner company was merged and after NCLT's approval, unutilized ITC and liabilities were transferred and department parallelly initiated audit-based and scrutiny-based proceedings for same period, audit and scrutiny notices could be issued separately as each arose from distinct processes; suppression of facts being disclosed as was required for invoking section 74, limitation period would be extended and, thus, SCNs could not be challenged filing writ petitions
Kerala High Court
Where contractor, a registered taxpayer, executed works for government department and contract stipulated government would bear GST liability, statutory obligation to pay tax under CGST/KSGST remained with contractor, so writ petition challenging adjudication was not maintainable and contractual remedies could be pursued separately without affecting tax liability