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 200 on Pre-consultation show cause notice cannot be waived

GST update No 200 on Pre-consultation show cause notice cannot be waived

Show cause notice lays down the foundation of on the basis of which the adjudication proceedings are carried out and disputes are adjudicated. Time and again the Courts are flooded with plethora of cases wherein the orders of lower authorities were set aside on the ground of vaguely issued show cause notices. The intend of the Court behind this action is to ensure that the assessees are not subject to rigors of penalty provisions. Furthermore, the Board has made it mandatory to issue pre-consultation notices to the assessees wherein the amount of demand involved is above Rs. 50 Lakhs. However, it seems that the revenue authorities have filed to adopt this practice. On the similar grounds, the case travelled up to Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Gulati Enterprises V/s Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Ors. The decision imparted in this respect is subject matter of present update.

 

The petitioner was issued a show cause notice alleging that there was clandestine supply of goods and therefore, tax along with penalty was demanded from the assessee. The Counsel of the petitioner argued that the show cause notice is improper on the grounds of non-issuance of pre-consultation show cause notice as per Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017. It was further argued that after introduction of GST Act, the revenue authorities mandatorily had to issue pre consultation show cause notice. Further, it was contended that on perusal of GST DRC-01A, the revenue authorities had to crystalise the amount of tax and cess component along with the period to which it pertains to and the grounds on the basis of which penalty is fastened. Unfortunately, in the present case no such pre-consultation notice was issued to the assessee.

 

The Counsel of revenue argued that when the impugned show cause notice was issued, the statutory form i.e. GST-DRC 01A was not available on the portal and therefore, it was not issued to the assessee. Further, it was argued that the authorised signatory of the petitioner gave a voluntary statement before the concerned officer which obviated the need of issuance of pre-consultation show cause notice.

 

The Court analysed the case and placed referred to the decision passed by Bench of this Court in the case of Back Office IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.- W.P. No. 5766/2019. Further, reference was made to Master Circular of Board dated 10.03.2017 in this regard. The Court held that the requirement of issuance of show cause notice is mandatory and there are no exceptions to the same. Further, it was stated that before amendment, as per Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules, 2017, the word “Shall” depicting compulsory requirement of issuing pre-consultation show cause notice was replaced with “may” with effect from 15.10.2020. However, it was held that the impact of this amendment shall not apply to present case since the show cause notice was issued prior to 21.05.2020. It was further held that the arguments as laid down by revenue are not appropriate since the revenue authorities should have issued a manual form in case the form was not available on the web portal. Further, it was held that a voluntary statement cannot substitute the statutory notice. Reliance was placed on the decision of another Bench of the Court in the case of Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd. V/s Union of India & Ors. [W.P. No. 12653/2019]. Therefore, it was held that the revenue has grossly erred in performing its functions.

 

The above decision is a favouring the decision imparted in uniformity with the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Dharamshil Agencies V/s Union of India. Time and again the Judiciary has back-to-back quashed various notices on the grounds of improper issuance of notices which demonstrates the fact that there is zero tolerance of non-compliance of instructions issued by department itself. On the Contrary, even if the contention of revenue is accepted regarding aforesaid amendment i.e it is discretionary to issued pre-consultation show cause notice, then also the departmental authorities should interpret the word “may” as “akin to shall” and thereby issue pre-consultation show cause notices to be on a safer side. However, it is quite disheartening that the lower authorities are not discharging their duties appropriately failing which will increases the instances of unnecessary litigations manifolds and further leads to wastage of time of the department and assessees.
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