Calcutta High Court
For assesseeRemanded
Topic
Show-cause notices, adjudication orders, limitation and natural justice in demand proceedings.
60 rulings found
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
Supreme Court
Where State issued SCN dated 13.06.2025 for 2018-19 after annual return due date was extended to 31.12.2020 and limitation period, after excluding COVID period of 1 year 2 months, expired on 28.02.2025, SCN was time-barred under general provision and interference with such notice on ground of limitation was justified GST: Where assessee received a show cause notice invoking extended period on grounds of fraud or concealment without specifying material facts or particulars, and State sought to rely on a counter affidavit to justify allegations, such notice was invalid as its validity must stem from inherent content, rendering extended period invocation and consequent proceedings unsustainable
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
Allahabad High Court
Where petitioner's registration had been cancelled and no business was carried on thereafter, uploading show cause notice solely on GST portal post-cancellation did not constitute valid service, breaching principles of natural justice, as petitioner was under no obligation to check portal and alternative service modes were required, resulting in demand order being quashed
Patna High Court
Where Proper Officer issued order determining tax liability and attached bank account for FY 2022-23 before due date for annual return had expired, such premature adjudication was without authority and impugned order was set aside, requiring fresh proceedings to be initiated only after due date for filing annual return had passed
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
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
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
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 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