Topic
Show-cause notices, adjudication orders, limitation and natural justice in demand proceedings.
107 rulings found
Allahabad High Court
Where penalty order imposed amount exceeding what was proposed in show- cause notice, since statute bars confirming liability beyond SCN, such excess imposition suffered from jurisdictional error
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee was subjected to assessment for multiple tax periods and a common assessment order was passed clubbing separate periods under both CGST and APGST, such composite order was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside, requiring fresh proceedings period-wise in accordance with law
Kerala High Court
Where a dealer received a composite notice and order-in-original for multiple years under CGST/KGST, such composite proceedings were unsustainable as per settled law, so the impugned order, notice, and summary were quashed and authorities allowed to issue fresh year-wise notices, with benefit of Section 16(5) if returns filed by 30.11.2021 and limitation period suitably adjusted. GST: Where petitioner was denied ITC for certain months on limitation grounds though returns were furnished by 30.11.2021 and Section 16(5) benefit was claimed, order and related notices were quashed and respondents were to reconsider eligibility for ITC for each year, granting Section 16(5) benefit if timely filing is verified, excluding specified period for limitation computation
Madras High Court
Where registered purchaser claimed ITC on supplies from identified supplier and produced bank statements, invoices, e-way bills, ledgers and GSTR-2A/2B in response to SCN issued under Section 73, reversal of ITC solely due to supplier's registration cancellation without considering produced documents or affording opportunity for additional evidence could not be sustained and order was set aside for fresh adjudication
Kerala High Court
Composite GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years was unsustainable and related demand orders being unsustainable was required to be quashed; department permitted to issue separate fresh year-wise notices
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner bank received a composite show-cause notice and adjudication order clubbing multiple financial years for alleged IGST liability involving fraud, since each financial year is a separate unit for limitation and notices cannot combine multiple years to overcome bar of limitation, such composite notice and order were held illegal and without jurisdiction and were quashed
Tripura High Court
Where department issued Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice and Order-in- Original for 2017-18 after expiry of five-year period from due date of furnishing annual return and without any notification extending limitation under Section 74 or Section 168A, such proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to law. GST: Where SGST authorities had already issued and dropped proceedings with respect to excess ITC availed for certain years and identical subject matter was included in respondent’s SCN and OIO, statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) against parallel proceedings applied, making such notices and orders without jurisdiction to that extent. GST: Bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only where CGST and SGST proceedings involve identical subject matter; where SGST proceedings concerned GSTR- 1B/GSTR-3B mismatch and CGST proceedings related to short payment of tax, parallel CGST action was valid
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner-airline neither received services nor paid consideration, question whether petitioner-airline was “recipient” of CRS services and liable to IGST required determination; as issue involved jurisdiction of adjudicating authority and warranted deeper examination, writ petition was maintainable despite availability of statutory appeal
Bombay High Court
Where transferor company was dissolved post-amalgamation and all authorities were informed of cessation, issuance of show cause notice and demand order under Section 74 to non-existent transferor was without jurisdiction and void ab initio, as such proceedings cannot be sustained against an entity that ceased to exist following merger and registration cancellation
Gujarat High Court
Where department issued show cause notice and tax order in deceased proprietor's name after cancellation of registration with zero dues, in view of fact that petitioner widow had no business connection, all such proceedings and consequential actions like bank account freezing were void and quashed, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against legal heir if permissible under law
Rajasthan High Court
Where during search and seizure proceedings at business and partners' premises, substantial tax was extracted from petitioner via ITC reversal and cash entries before any show cause notice or voluntary acknowledgment, and contemporaneous records or safeguards for voluntary compliance were absent, such payment was not considered voluntary and retention of amount was unsustainable, necessitating refund of recovered amount. GST: Where petitioner claimed interest on refund amount alleging unauthorised recovery during search but investigation was still pending, no show cause notice was issued and no adjudication completed, entitlement to interest was premature, so grant of interest was declined pending final determination of liability after investigation, without prejudice to parties' rights on eventual outcome
Kerala High Court
Excise/ST/VAT: Where reassessment notice for 2009-10 was issued based on audit objection beyond limitation period, since Section 25A does not override five-year cap in Section 25(1) and satisfaction under Section 25A still requires adherence to limitation, such notice was void as time-barred and liable to be quashed
Kerala High Court
Where consolidated show cause notice covered multiple financial years in a single notice and precedents mandated separate notices for each assessment year, issuing a composite SCN was impermissible and such notice was to be quashed with liberty to issue fresh year-wise notices
Gauhati High Court
Where proper officer issued only summary of SCN without serving substantive show cause notice before passing order in original under section 73(9), such determination was unsustainable and order was to be quashed requiring proper officer to issue show cause notice detailing cause of action for initiation of proceedings as mandated under section 73(1)
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner, upon receiving composite SCN alleging discrepancies and seeking personal hearing, was not granted such opportunity before demand order was passed, decision process was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice and mandatory requirement under section 75(4), thus, impugned order was set aside and personal hearing before a new officer was directed
Telangana High Court
Where prior writ order in petitioner’s case remanded assessment for breach of personal hearing mandate and directed adjudication of original SCN after granting hearing and considering reply, issuance of second SCN and fresh order for same year by AO was impermissible as it overreached remand scope, thus impugned order was set aside for adjudication on first SCN only with compliant hearing
Kerala High Court
Where revenue issued a single composite show cause notice covering multiple tax periods without alleging fraud, such composite notice was unsustainable in law as per binding Division Bench precedents, and was required to be quashed with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant period, while excluding time from composite notice date to judgment delivery for limitation
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee executed works contracts for government departments and exemption was claimed under relevant service tax notification while demand was raised solely based on Income-tax Form 26AS data without independent scrutiny or recording pre-conditions for invoking extended limitation period, demand was unsustainable and assumption of jurisdiction by adjudicating authority was unauthorized
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's export of services and refund eligibility were denied solely due to alleged non-furnishing of Letter of Undertaking without examining nature of transactions or actual furnishing of Letter of Undertaking as required under law, both adjudication and appellate orders were to be quashed and matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration regarding jurisdiction and refund entitlement based on Letter of Undertaking
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner in construction was issued a consolidated SCN and composite order covering GST demand, interest, and penalty for multiple years, such clubbing of periods was beyond statutory jurisdiction as assessments must be period-specific, making consolidated SCN, order, and recovery void ab initio and not cured by admission or estoppel, rendering writ maintainable and quashing impugned actions