Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE No 159 ON CHALLENGING SCN BY WRIT PETITION

GST UPDATE No 159 ON CHALLENGING SCN BY WRIT PETITION
The taxation statue prescribes a mechanism for the assessee to defend their case whenever demand is raised against them. The hierarchy of litigation in GST law is issuance of show cause notice for adjudication of the case leading to passing of order in original. Appeal may be filed before the first appellate authority, i.e., Commissioner Appeals against the order in original by the person aggrieved with the said order. The Commissioner Appeals pass Order in Appeal, deciding the appeal filed before it which can be further appealed to the Tribunal constituted under the statue. Thereafter, the appeals may be preferred to High Court and finally to the Supreme Court. Every assessee is required to pass this stipulated channel in order to get justice. Now, the question arises is whether it is permissible for the assessee to knock the doors of High Court at the show cause notice stage itself? This issue was recently dealt with by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of SRI RAJENDRA NARAYAN MOHANTY V/S CT GST CUTTACK. The analysis of this decision is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner received TDS for the months October 2018, November 2018, January 2019, February 2019 and March 2019 for the Financial Year 2018-19. However, tax liability was not discharged by them because “NIL” liability was disclosed by the petitioner while filing GSTR-3B. The petitioner submitted that while filing Annual Return as on 20.12.2020 for FY 18-19, correct figures were disclosed by them. The petitioner contended that the proper officer restricted them from availing input tax credit from their credit ledger and submitted that instruction cannot have overriding effect over provisions of statue. Further, the petitioner contended that the proper officer has no jurisdiction to invoke provisions in the present case. Therefore, writ petition is filed in the High Court by the petitioner without filing reply to the show cause notice. The High Court held that the petitioner filed writ petition without replying to the objections raised in the show cause notice and thus, writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA V/S COASTAL CONTAINER TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION wherein it was held that writ petition will not be entertained in case alternate remedy is available under statue. The Court held that the petitioner ought to have responded to the show cause notice and follow a proper channel before approaching the High Court. The petitioner during the course of hearing submitted that although input credit is utilized against payment of output tax but no interest is paid against delayed payment. The Court ordered petitioner to file reply within a period of 15 days and directed the proper officer to pass appropriate order after considering the submissions made by the petitioner. We all are aware that as the GST Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted till date, the High Courts are already flooded with petitions. Moreover, the burden of litigation in High Courts is substantial and so petitions cannot be preferred to High Courts for taxation matters wherein hierarchy of litigation is pre-defined. However, we all know that exceptions are always there and High Courts have exercised their discretionary powers many times for serving justice to the assesses. In this context, reference may be made to the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX VERSUS COMMERCIAL STEEL LTD. [2021 (52) G.S.T.L. 385 (S.C.)] wherein it has been held that the High Court has power to exercise writ jurisdiction in the following circumstances-breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or challenge to the vires of the statue or delegated legislation. The High Courts refuse to grant any relief in cases other than the exceptions as stated and directs the assessee to follow the prescribed dispute channel as prescribed in the Statue. Similarly, reference may be made to the following judicial pronouncements wherein the view of the High Court regarding dismissal of writ petition in case of availability of statutory alternate remedy was upheld:- • R.K. ANGANGBI SINGH V. COMMISSIONER – [2016 (332) E.L.T. A247 (S.C.)] • VISHNU & COMPANY PVT. LTD. V. SUPERINTENDENT – [2016 (332) E.L.T. A141 (S.C.)] • UNION OF INDIA VERSUS RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD. [2015 (326) E.L.T. 232 (S.C.)] • GENERAL CEMENT PRODUCTS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER – [2015 (323) E.L.T. A21 (S.C.)] • [SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED V. UNION OF INDIA - 2015 (321) E.L.T. A208 (S.C.)] The above decisions clearly indicate that the assessee should be cautious while filing writ petitions against show cause notice because High Courts entertain writs only if the case is covered by exceptional circumstances. Filing writ petition without filing reply to the show cause notice has the inherent risk of expiry of the time limit for filing reply. Therefore, the decision of challenging show cause notice by way of filing writ petition should be exercised judiciously.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com