Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1011 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTWrongful claim of Input tax credit - bogus supply - vague SCN - SCN did contain the details about the foundation of the case - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It would be proper for this Court to consider the issue of whether the impugned notice can be challenged by way of this writ petition, though remedy of filing reply is available. The issue regarding the proper show cause notice was considered by the Apex Court in the cases of GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. [2014 (8) TMI 1081 - SUPREME COURT], METAL FORGINGS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2002 (11) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT] as well as in the case of CCE VERSUS SHITAL INTERNATIONAL [2010 (10) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT] - In the judgement mentioned, Apex Court observed that it is trite law that unless the foundation of the case is laid in the show cause notice, the same cannot be treated as proper show cause notice and notice issued in a format without even striking out any relevant portion and without stating clear contraventions committed by the petitioner, will not substitute the requirement of proper show cause notice. Hon'ble Apex Court in DILIP N. SHROFF VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT], has also observed that expression in Section 73/74 of the Act, 2017 "appears to be proper officer" is not to a casual act but should show the full application of mind by proper officer. From the perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that it contains necessary details and grounds, which are the basis for issuing the same. Still, at the tail end of the impugned notice, instead of seeking a reply on the allegation mentioned in the impugned show cause notice issued under Section 74 (1) of the Act, 2017, petitioner was directed to reply with regard to the tax and penalty and it was stated that if no reply was furnished then order under Section 74(9) of the Act, 2017 would be passed. Therefore, the impugned notice because of the facts mentioned in the earlier part of the notice cannot be said to be patently illegal, being without jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no ground for quashing the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of filing a reply to the impugned show cause notice. Because the notice did contain the details about the foundation of the case, i.e. that there was no actual supply of goods on 12 June, 2018 by M/s Raghav Enterprises to petitioner, the show cause notice is not quashed instead the petitioner is permitted to also reply with regard to the fact that goods were in fact supplied to the petitioner from M/s Raghav Enterprises. Petition disposed off.
|