Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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