Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 87 - HC - GSTChallenge to show cause cum demand notice issued u/s 74 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that an order in original has already been passed upon adjudication of the show cause notice the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the same by way of a connected application as the same gives rise to a separate cause of action. Since the show cause has already been adjudicated and has merged with the final order the above writ petition can be disposed of by permitting the petitioners to challenge not only the show cause but also the adjudication order in original dated 5th February 2025 in a composite manner in accordance with law if so advised. Petition disposed off.
The Calcutta High Court addressed a writ petition challenging a show cause cum demand notice dated 23rd July 2024 issued under Section 74 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2019-20. The petitioner also sought to challenge the subsequent order in original dated 5th February 2025 passed under the same section.The Court held that since the adjudication order had already been passed, the petitioner could not separately challenge it via a connected application, as it constituted a distinct cause of action. Noting that the show cause notice had merged with the final adjudication order, the Court permitted the petitioner to challenge both the show cause notice and the adjudication order "in a composite manner in accordance with law."Consequently, the writ petition and connected application were disposed of with directions allowing a combined legal challenge. The Court observed no affidavit-in-opposition was filed, so the petitioners' allegations were deemed not admitted by respondents.
|