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 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