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 186 on validity of adjudication on basis of summary SCN

GST update No 186 on validity of adjudication on basis of summary SCN
It is well settled principle that the show cause notice lays the foundation for initiation of any proceedings against taxpayer and therefore, needs to be communicated effectively to the concerned taxpayers. Time and again various Courts had upheld the ideology that the “Notice is the first limb of the adjudication proceedings and therefore, must be precise and unambiguous”, failure of which will result into violation of principles of natural justice. The revenue authorities are reluctant to make a note of this principle thereby leading to knocking the doors of the courts repeatedly. Recently, the validity of the adjudication order was challenged before hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/S GODAVARI COMMODITIES LTD. V/S STATE OF JHARKHAND on the grounds that summary SCN was issued and no personal hearing was granted. The decision imparted is subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner is engaged in trading of coal and purchases the same from various Governmental entities. The petitioner was directed to produce documents pertaining to the movement of goods relating to sale and purchase of the coal but they were unable to do so. Consequently, the petitioner was issued an intimation in DRC-01A dated 29.01.2020 directing the petitioner to make payment of tax, interest and penalty. Subsequently, a “summary of show cause notice” was issued on 14.03.2020 and a later on “summary of the Order” in Form-GST DRC-07 dated 11.09.2020 was also issued. An order sheet was issued on 14.03.2020 and thereafter straightaway order sheet was next issued on 14.08.2020. The petitioner failed to make the payment. An adjudication order was dated 11.09.2020 instead of 13.08.2020 which was communicated to the petitioner for the first time. It was further noticed that no SCN or “Summary SCN” was issued to the petitioner. Hence, the entire adjudication proceedings were being CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??4 questioned on the grounds that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the petitioner for defending their case thereby leading to violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that since no SCN was issued, it results into violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on the following Judicial Pronouncements: • M/s. Prime Alloys V/s. The State Tax Officer being W.P. Nos. 26250 & 26252 of 2021 and W.M.P. Nos. 27700 & 27701 of 2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. • Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Akanksha Distributers Private Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai being W.P. Nos. 22507 & 22512 of 2021 and W.M.P. Nos. 23732 of 2021. • Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Akanksha Distributers Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai being W.P. Nos. 22507 & 22512 of 2021 and W.M.P. Nos. 23732 of 2021. • M/s. OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) reported in 2021- VIL-356-AP • Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of KorrapathiJanardhana Naidu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2021) 35 TAXLOC.COM 100 (AP). • Alkem Laboratories Limited Vs. Union of India by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 2021- VIL-120-GUJ. • Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B.M. Patel and Company Vs. State Tax Officer being Writ Petition No. 13652 of 2020 and WMP No. 16973 of 2020 • In the case of Enprocom Enterprises Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax reported in 2020- VIL-25-GUJ • In the case of Enprocom Enterprises Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax reported in 2020- VIL-25-GUJ The Counsel of the department argued that the investigation was initiated against the petitioner wherein the petitioner was directed to issue relevant documents related to movement of goods. However, the petitioner failed to furnish the same. Therefore, a summary SCN was issued. However, since it was also not replied by petitioner, adjudicating authorities CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5 passed adjudication order dated 13.08.2020. But there was no recording of the same in the order sheet. The Court analysed that the issue is related to the fact that the initiation of adjudication proceedings without issuance of the SCN is void ab initio and the order passed thereon is non-est in the eyes of law. Reliance was placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench of Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/S NKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS/. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS, reported in 2021-VIL-732-Jhr. The Court opined that the said the present petition is required to be dealt in accordance with the Judgement since the procedure prescribed under GST Act is not followed by GST authorities. It was held that the manner in which the adjudication order is passed by the authorities demonstrates serious lacuna existing in the law. It was stated that the Adjudication order was passed in gross violation of the provisions of the Law and without issuance of SCN. It was held that on 14.03.2020, DRC—01 was issued without specifying any date of hearing and thereafter, on 13.08.2020, Adjudication Order was passed straightaway which showcases that the provisions of Law and principles of natural justice were being violated. Further, there was no satisfactory explanation provided for the order mentioning the date as 11.09.2020 instead of 13.08.2020. It was directed by the Court to the revenue authorities to follow proper procedures and guidelines regarding the manner of issuance of show cause notices and proceedings thereon since a huge revenue of state is also involved in the said matters. Directions were given to quash the summary orders since the summary SCN was not having ingredients of proper SCN and entire proceedings deserves to be set aside. The above decision is yet another epitome of the fact that improper issuance of Show Cause Notice can lead to quashing the entire proceedings. Recently, Department of Trade and Taxes (Delhi) has also issued Indicative Guidelines for Issuance of Show Cause Notices F. No. 1(2)/DTT/L&J/Misc./2019-20/77-79 dated 01.02.2022 which are to be strictly adhered to by the lower authorities to avoid contravention of provisions of Law. It is observed that the authorities are following wrong practices and thereby initiate proceedings on vague subject lines. Looking at the present scenario, a strict action to streamline proper adjudication process is anticipated CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??6 from the Government’s end at the earliest possible.
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