Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 235 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTValidity of SCN - vague SCN - notice has been issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), though the ingredients for initiation of the proceedings i.e. ‘suppression’ is not made out - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, in view of the submissions advanced as also the admitted position that the limitation period for notice under Section 73 did not expire on the date the impugned notice was issued, the question of extended period of limitation for issuance of notice under Section 74 is not involved. Had it been, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of limitation for issuance of notice under Section 73 had expired but any such notice was not issued and consequently to overcome the bar of limitation, the notice was issued under Section 74 even without satisfying the requirements of Section 74 the consideration might have been different. In Vijaya Venkata Durga Oil Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer [2014 (12) TMI 910 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad considered the judgment in M/S. UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. RAIPUR [2013 (1) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT]. It was held that if the allegations in the show cause notice accepted as true show that the dealer had committed willful evasion of tax and the finding recorded in the assessment order establish that the assessee had willfully evaded tax, it would suffice to extended period of limitation in terms of Section 21(5) of APVAT Act, 2005 notwithstanding that the show-cause notice did not refer to Section 21(5) and did not specifically use the words ‘wilful evasion of tax’. It was further held that it was, therefore, necessary to refer to the contents of show cause notice. In the present case it is found that the show cause notice mentioned the grounds for its issuance. Even if it be taken that the ‘suppression’ is not mentioned, to meet the requirement of Section 74 to issue the notice. It is not the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it does not meet the requirements of Section 73. Further the submission is that the notice should be under Section 73 but it mentions under Section 74 - mere mention of a provision would not be determinative of the notice under that section. It dependents upon the contents. Petition dismissed.
|