Topic
Show-cause notices, adjudication orders, limitation and natural justice in demand proceedings.
64 rulings found
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered firm was assessed for multiple financial years under a single composite order in proceedings alleging fraud under Section 74, such order was invalid as each tax period requires separate adjudication, so composite order was unsustainable and impugned order was set aside with liberty to issue separate orders for each period in accordance with law
Delhi High Court
Where CGST authorities initiated proceedings and issued show cause notice before SGST authorities on same subject matter for overlapping periods, statutory bar on parallel proceedings under section 6(2)(b) was not attracted, and jurisdictional objection could not be a ground to bypass statutory appeal remedy, making writ interference unwarranted. GST: Where goods were seized without invoices during search and initial proceedings under section 67(7) were concluded with order dropping proceedings, a subsequent show cause notice under section 74, culminating in an order after investigation and reply, constituted a distinct proceeding, not a parallel adjudication of same subject matter, thus both orders were legally sustainable. GST: Where petitioner challenged proceedings under writ jurisdiction despite availability of undisputed statutory appeal under section 107, and no jurisdictional infirmity or violation of natural justice was found on objections raised under section 6(2)(b), writ remedy was declined as no ground existed to override efficacious appellate remedy, relegating petitioner to appeal process
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under section 74 on grounds that prior dropping of GST registration cancellation barred subsequent adjudication for tax or ITC involving fraud, since cancellation proceedings and section 74 adjudication operate in distinct spheres, such challenge was misconceived and writ was not maintainable, leaving petitioner with opportunity to file a reply before adjudication
Kerala High Court
Where a petitioner claimed denial of opportunity to be heard in assessment proceedings due to internal disputes, health issues and entrustment of portal credentials to counsel, but hearing notices were repeatedly uploaded on GST portal and not acted upon, valid service of notice stood established and responsibility to monitor portal rested with petitioner, so writ petition challenging orders was not maintainable
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
Calcutta High Court
Where assessee challenged adjudication, appellate order and recovery proceedings on pure jurisdictional grounds such as competence and absence of cross-empowerment, and such questions involved no disputed facts but raised legal issues, writ petition was maintainable despite existence of an alternate remedy and matter was to be remanded to adjudicating authority for decision on jurisdictional issue first
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
Gujarat High Court
Where department issued show cause notice and demand order for alleged fraud against a deceased taxpayer after GSTIN cancellation with nil demand, and petitioner, a housewife unrelated to business, presented death certificate, both SCN and demand order were quashed as issued against deceased, with liberty to proceed per law against petitioner if necessary
Rajasthan High Court
Where sole proprietorship discontinued on death of proprietor and adjudication orders for tax, interest and penalty were passed against deceased without notice or hearing to legal heir, section 93(1)(b) imposed recovery from estate through legal representative, subject to procedural requirements of proper notice, opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order under section 75. GST: Where adjudication order and tax demand were issued against a deceased proprietor without notice or hearing to legal heir and without a reasoned speaking order, assessment proceedings stood vitiated for non-compliance with statutory requirements and orders were quashed, allowing for fresh proceedings after giving hearing to legal heir
Rajasthan High Court
Where SCN proposing tax demand expressly contemplated personal hearing after reply due date and assessee filed timely reply with written personal hearing request, but officer passed ex parte order without fixing such hearing or considering reply, denial of opportunity breached natural justice and vitiated assessment, mandating setting aside of order and directing fresh proceeding after affording personal hearing
Delhi High Court
Where assessee challenged ex parte order confirming penalty for wrongful ITC availed on ground of non-receipt of SCN and asserted cessation of business with registration cancellation application, since disputed facts on service of notice and registration subsistence existed, writ remedy was not warranted and appellate remedy was to be pursued with writ-pendency period excluded for limitation purposes
Allahabad High Court
Where registered person received notice under section 74 but was not offered any personal hearing, with 'NA' entered for hearing details and adverse order was passed, statutory mandate under section 75(4) for oral hearing before adverse decision was violated, non-filing of written reply did not negate right to oral hearing, making adverse order invalid
Supreme Court
SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where neither any finding with regard to fraud had been noticed nor mis-statement nor suppression of fact had been recorded at any stage, and assessee had proved actual movement of goods and payment of tax, proceedings under section 74 could not be initiated against assessee
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where show cause notice under section 74 did not disclose specific reasons and relied-upon documents were not supplied to petitioner, statutory requirement was not fulfilled and denial of opportunity vitiated proceedings, rendering consequent recovery and bank account attachment legally unsustainable and requiring fresh issuance of show cause notice with specific reasons
Calcutta High Court
Where an ex parte order under Section 74 was uploaded under a wrong portal tab and thus, escaped assessee’s notice,impugned order was to be set aside and opportunity to contest SCN was granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards disputed tax
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee’s reply to Section 74 SCN was not considered and mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) was not granted, same vitiated DRC-07 assessment; as hearing was required where adverse decision was contemplated, order and consequential proceedings were unsustainable and were to be quashed. GST: Violation of natural justice and failure to grant mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) rendered assessment under Section 74 legally unsustainable; consequently, endorsement rejecting statutory appeal as time-barred could not survive, and assessment with all consequential proceedings was to be set aside
Kerala High Court
Where demand under section 74 and confiscation proceedings under section 130 were founded on witness statements and request for cross examination was rejected on irrelevant grounds, denial of effective opportunity vitiated adjudication and matter was liable to be remanded for fresh proceedings
Madras High Court
Where SCN identified excess ITC claim due to mismatch in returns and did not allege fraud or suppression, proceeding should be under section 73, not section 74, as section 74's ingredients were absent, making assessment order unsustainable and requiring remand for a fresh decision under proper section with liberty for statutory reliefs
Madras High Court
Where for FY 2024-25 assessee was issued SCN invoking Section 74 after its omission and introduction of Section 74-A, direction for fresh notice under Section 74-A and due procedure was correct, but initial notice was not without jurisdiction as authority existed, only wrong provision was cited, thus proceedings to continue under correct provision with clarification
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