Case Law Details
Tvl. Easyway Logistics Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that any order travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice is not maintainable. Thus, impugned assessment order under GST was passed beyond the scope of show cause notice is liable to be quashed.
Facts- Initially, ASMT notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.10.2024, for which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 31.10.2024. Pursuant to which, the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 19.11.2024, by annexing the ASMT notice as well the reply filed by the petitioner. However, no detailed show cause notice was issued. Subsequently, impugned assessment order came to be passed by enhancing the figures under IGST, CGST and SGST and therefore the impugned order passed is beyond the scope of the show cause notice, which is in violation of Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the rectification application and the same was rejected vide orders dated 25.06.2025 and 17.07.2025.
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 12.02.2025 and the consequential orders of the respondent rejecting the application for rectification dated 25.06.2025 and 17.07.2025.
Conclusion- Held that any order travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice is not maintainable. In the case on hand, admittedly impugned assessment order was passed beyond the scope of show cause notice. That apart no detail show cause notice was issued. Thus, this Court instead of setting aside the impugned order is inclined to direct the petitioner to treat the impugned assessment order as the show cause notice and to file reply to the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 12.02.2025 and the consequential orders of the respondent rejecting the application for rectification dated 25.06.2025 and 17.07.2025.
2. Mrs. S. Premalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the Respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially ASMT notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.10.2024, for which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 31.10.2024. Pursuant to which, the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 19.11.2024, by annexing the ASMT notice as well the reply filed by the petitioner. However, no detailed show cause notice was issued. Subsequently, impugned assessment order came to be passed by enhancing the figures under IGST, CGST and SGST and therefore the impugned order passed is beyond the scope of the show cause notice, which is in violation of Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the rectification application and the same was rejected vide orders dated 25.06.2025 and 17.07.2025.
3.1. Further, he would submit that since no detailed show cause notice was issued and as the petitioner already filed a detailed reply to the ASMT notice, the petitioner had not filed reply to the show cause notice. That apart, the impugned assessment order suffers from principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard before passing impugned assessment order. He therefore prays to set aside the same. He further prayed that there is bank attachment and the same may be directed to be lifted
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent fairly agreed that the assessment order passed is beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Further, he would submit that since detailed show cause notice was not issued, the petitioner may be directed to treat the assessment order as show cause notice and file reply to the same. He therefore prayed for appropriate orders.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. Any order travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice is not maintainable. In the case on hand, admittedly impugned assessment order was passed beyond the scope of show cause notice. That apart no detail show cause notice was issued.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court instead of setting aside the impugned order is inclined to direct the petitioner to treat the impugned assessment order as the show cause notice and to file reply to the same. Accordingly,this Court passes the following order:
(i) The petitioner is directed to file reply to the impugned assessment order dated 12.02.2025 by treating it as a show cause notice, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) On such reply being filed, the respondent is directed, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice by fixing the date of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
(iii) The respondent is directed to instruct the concerned bank officials to defreeze the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner, forthwith upon production of a copy of this order.
(iv) Since the assessment order is directed to be treated as a show cause notice, the consequent orders passed by the respondent dated 25.06.2025 and 17.07.2025, rejecting the rectification application is also set aside.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
Author Bio
