High Court of Madras
Fastenex (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer
For revenue
W.P. NOS. 35967, 35970, 35974 AND 35976 OF 2024
High Court of Madras
W.P. NOS. 35967, 35970, 35974 AND 35976 OF 2024
Where assessees challenged demands raised invoking extended-period on ground that there was lack of foundational facts in show cause notices, in view of fact that prior communications like scrutiny, audit or inspection had already conveyed requisite reasons and facts, invocation of extended-period was valid; absence of reasons in show cause notice alone was not fatal if jurisdictional facts were discernible from earlier communications or on record, subject to prima facie satisfaction under section 74.
Where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is not established, proceedings initiated under Section 74 need not fail but may be converted into Section 73 proceedings; such conversion preserves valid tax demands while excluding consequences dependent on extended-period ingredients.
Where central authorities issued consolidated show cause notices spanning multiple years and parties disputed permissibility of such composite notices, consolidated SCNs covering multiple periods were deemed valid, as normal and extended-period demands were not tax-period specific and statute did not prohibit common SCNs for multiple periods
Where assessee, on being inspected for multiple years and issued DRC-01A and DRC-01 alleging fraud, non-cooperation, documentation lapses and failures to provide financials, challenged show cause notices as pre-determined, since GST scheme allows communication of reasons throughout proceedings and detailed SCN was intended to enable assessee for rebuttal, writ challenge was not maintainable and merits had to be adjudicated in their own course.…
Section 74, read with sections 61, 65, 66, 67 and 73, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 99, read with Rule 142, of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 74, read with sections 73 and 75, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 73, read with section 74, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 74, read with section 73, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Delhi High Court
Where taxpayer challenged administrative transfer of audit file from Audit Wing to Anti-Evasion Wing within same Commissionerate citing authority and audit timeline grounds, such transfer was administrative in nature, not barred by statute, and interference was unwarranted as petitioner could raise all related objections before Adjudicating Authority, especially since transfer followed repeated non- compliance by petitioner
Delhi High Court
Where petitioner distributor of medicines challenged show cause notice and appropriation of amount deposited during audit on grounds of coercion, limitation, computation, and jurisdiction, since statutory adjudication had commenced and SCN did not finally determine liability, all objections including voluntariness of payment and other contentions could be raised before Adjudicating Authority and interference at SCN stage was unwarranted
Delhi High Court
Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication