Topic
Show-cause notices, adjudication orders, limitation and natural justice in demand proceedings.
136 rulings found
Kerala High Court
Where a single composite order covered multiple financial years for adjudication of demand not involving fraud, such composite order was invalid in light of Division Bench rulings, consequently order was quashed with liberty granted to issue separate notices for each relevant financial year
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
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.…
Karnataka High Court
Where manpower service provider deposited amounts through DRC-03 ahead of any statutory demand or fraud allegation, without DRC-04 acknowledgment and without interest or penalty as required for fraud matters, such payment was not voluntary under GST rules, thus, rejection of refund of such amount was erroneous and refund with interest was directed, keeping adjudication on underlying SCN open
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
Karnataka High Court
Where same officer conducted audit, issued show cause notice, and passed adjudication order for tax demand not involving fraud, such adjudication violated principles of natural justice, thus, adjudication order was to be quashed and proceedings were to recommence before a different officer from stage of reply to show cause notice with due opportunity of hearing
Calcutta High Court
Where a notice and subsequent recovery order were issued in name of deceased sole-proprietor for fraud-related tax demands after death, such proceedings were void ab initio since SCN must be directed to legal representatives under legal-heir liability scheme, making determination against a non-existent person impermissible and vitiating demand and recovery actions based on such notice
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 adjudication order covering multiple financial years was issued to petitioner for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice is unsustainable in law, thus both the notice and subsequent orders founded on it were quashed, with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant period being preserved
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 consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years was issued in respect of tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, such composite notice was invalid as per precedent disallowing clubbing distinct periods, warranting quashing of consolidated notice and granting liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant 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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered trader was subjected to a composite assessment order imposing 100 percent penalty covering multiple tax periods through a single order, such composite assessment was unsustainable as statutory scheme requires separate period-wise orders, and allowing composite orders impairs statutory rights of appeal and renders legislative provisions otiose, thus impugned order was set aside
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered dealer trading in computers and related goods was issued a single show cause notice and composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods, such composite proceedings were unsustainable since law prohibits issuance of a single notice or order for more than one tax period, resulting in setting aside of impugned composite order
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
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
Gujarat High Court
Where GST demand proceedings were initiated and concluded in name of deceased sole proprietor after cancellation of registration post demise, with SCNs and orders issued on GSTN portal and premises without knowledge of legal heir housewife, all such notices and orders stood invalid and quashed, with liberty reserved to initiate proceedings against legal heir as per law
Calcutta High Court
Where traders faced ITC mismatch demands after ex parte assessment and appeals without proper hearing or compliance with Circular 183/15/2022-GST, including verification of Section 16 conditions, and alleged breach of natural justice, orders were set aside for fresh consideration as opportunity for reconciliation and hearing was not properly afforded