Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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