The High Court declined to interfere with a GST show cause notice, holding that the challenge was premature. The assessee was directed to pursue adjudication and raise all legal submissions.
The Madras High Court remitted a GST order for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the petitioner must submit a reply with supporting documents before finalizing the tax demand.
The petition was dismissed as assessee failed to explain prolonged inaction after original order and demand notice. Ruling affirms that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and time-sensitive.
Madras High Court held that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot review its earlier order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Notably jurisdiction of Tribunal is restricted only to rectify error and not review.
The High Court set aside a GST demand passed after the assessee failed to attend a hearing and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, subject to a 10% pre-deposit. The ruling balances procedural fairness with revenue protection.
The Court allowed lifting of the petitioner’s bank account attachment upon depositing 10% of disputed GST, directing the tax authority to reconsider blocked ITC.
Madras High Court held that issuance of show cause notice under section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 impermissible since tax already paid voluntarily and there was no tax liability to be paid at the time of issuance of show cause notice. Accordingly, notice quashed.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to file a fresh reply after initially failing to respond to a GST notice. Relief is conditional on depositing 50% of disputed tax, after which the authority must reconsider the matter.
Court directed deposit of 25% disputed tax, personal hearing, and submission of reply to ensure due process before final GST order.
The court held that notices meant to be issued by a Faceless Assessment Officer cannot be validly issued by a Jurisdictional Officer, quashing the notices while keeping Revenue’s rights open.
