Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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