Topic
Show-cause notices, adjudication orders, limitation and natural justice in demand proceedings.
150 rulings
Supreme Court
SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where neither any finding with regard to fraud had been noticed nor mis-statement nor suppression of fact had been recorded at any stage, and assessee had proved actual movement of goods and payment of tax, proceedings under section 74 could not be initiated against assessee
Gauhati High Court
Where Proper Officer issued a consolidated show cause notice and passed a single order covering multiple financial years for confirming tax, interest and penalty, issuance of such consolidated notice and order was within jurisdiction and authority, and challenge to competence on this ground was not sustainable with merits of the order left open for statutory appeal
Rajasthan High Court
Where Additional Commissioner who approved prosecution report subsequently acted as quasi-judicial adjudicating authority in matter involving petitioner dealing in bullion, gems and jewellery, foundation of unbiased adjudication was undermined, giving rise to reasonable apprehension of bias and resulting in quashing of both adjudication and appellate orders with remand for separation of roles
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where show cause notice under section 74 did not disclose specific reasons and relied-upon documents were not supplied to petitioner, statutory requirement was not fulfilled and denial of opportunity vitiated proceedings, rendering consequent recovery and bank account attachment legally unsustainable and requiring fresh issuance of show cause notice with specific reasons
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where assessment order under Section 73 was passed solely on basis of only a summary show cause notice without a separate notice specifying reasons as mandated, non-compliance with statutory requirements of Section 73 and Rule 142 rendered assessment proceedings unsustainable, resulting in quashing of assessment order and summary notice, with liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner received a consolidated show cause notice and consequential orders for multiple financial years for tax or ITC demands not involving fraud, in light of Division Bench rulings prohibiting composite notices for multiple years, such consolidated notice and orders were quashed with liberty to issue separate notices for each relevant year and limitation period adjusted accordingly
Kerala High Court
Where authorities issued a single consolidated show-cause notice and composite order-in-original for multiple financial years regarding tax or ITC not involving fraud, such composite proceedings were invalid, and consolidated notice and order were quashed with liberty to initiate separate proceedings for each financial year
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where partnership firm engaged in works contract services was issued a composite Order-in-Original and Summary in Form GST DRC-07 for two financial years without separate notices for each tax period, such orders covering multiple tax periods were invalid in law and were set aside, as separate adjudications for each period are required under GST law
Patna High Court
Where petitioner, a medicine trader, failed to file returns for 2020-2021 and was assessed for tax and late fee after show cause notice, demand of late fee through assessment proceedings under section 73 read with section 47, being a statutory mandate, was valid and enforceable and writ challenging such competence was to be dismissed as devoid of merit
Calcutta High Court
Limitation period applies to passing of adjudication order, not to its service; an adjudication order digitally signed within limitation period remains valid even if uploaded and served beyond limitation period and said order would become enforceable only upon such service
Allahabad High Court
Where adjudication order demanding tax, interest and penalty exceeded quantum proposed in SCN and introduced grounds beyond notice, action was contrary to statutory mandate that final demand cannot exceed notice amount or rest on grounds beyond notice, thus, impugned order raising higher demand was unsustainable
Kerala High Court
Where assessees faced tax determination proceedings on the basis of unsigned notices and orders, quashment of those orders barred authorities from curing defects by re-uploading the same orders and required issuance of fresh notices or orders as per law, with earlier directions enabling such re-issuance or barring limitation set aside and liberty to issue new notices/orders expressly retained
Calcutta High Court
Where proceedings under West Bengal GST Act were initiated by issuing Form GST DRC-01 omitting date, time, and venue for personal hearing and marking those as 'not applicable', thus denying petitioner an opportunity of hearing, entire assessment and demands founded on such defective show cause notice were vitiated and required to be set aside, with liberty for fresh proceedings after granting proper hearing
Calcutta High Court
Where an ex parte order under Section 74 was uploaded under a wrong portal tab and thus, escaped assessee’s notice,impugned order was to be set aside and opportunity to contest SCN was granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1 lakh towards disputed tax
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee’s reply to Section 74 SCN was not considered and mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) was not granted, same vitiated DRC-07 assessment; as hearing was required where adverse decision was contemplated, order and consequential proceedings were unsustainable and were to be quashed. GST: Violation of natural justice and failure to grant mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) rendered assessment under Section 74 legally unsustainable; consequently, endorsement rejecting statutory appeal as time-barred could not survive, and assessment with all consequential proceedings was to be set aside
Kerala High Court
Where demand under section 74 and confiscation proceedings under section 130 were founded on witness statements and request for cross examination was rejected on irrelevant grounds, denial of effective opportunity vitiated adjudication and matter was liable to be remanded for fresh proceedings
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where a composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods was passed against a partnership firm providing works contract services to Government departments without issuing period-wise separate orders, such composite order was invalid and set aside, with liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings through separate notices for each period in accordance with law
Allahabad High Court
Where assessee's registration was cancelled and business discontinued, service of show cause notice solely by uploading on GST portal was invalid since there was no obligation to check portal post-cancellation; thus, such service breached principles of natural justice and demand order was to be quashed
Madras High Court
Where SCN identified excess ITC claim due to mismatch in returns and did not allege fraud or suppression, proceeding should be under section 73, not section 74, as section 74's ingredients were absent, making assessment order unsustainable and requiring remand for a fresh decision under proper section with liberty for statutory reliefs
Madras High Court
Where registered person inadvertently paid tax under IGST instead of splitting payment into CGST and SGST, and entire tax liability stood discharged within prescribed period, IGST paid was to be appropriated towards correct heads without requirement of fresh payment and re-refund, as statutory refund scheme applies only to inter-State to intra-State reclassification and not mere wrong-head allocation