Abdul Rahiman Kunju Vs Deputy Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, while clarifying that an earlier communication relied upon by the authorities could not be treated as a statutory notice. The appellant argued that the learned Single Judge had wrongly treated Ext.P2 as a notice under Section 74 and that the final order passed pursuant to it was void. The appellant contended that Ext.P2 was merely an intimation and that prior communications referred to by the department did not satisfy the statutory requirements. Based on this, the appellant sought interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Dismisses Challenge to GST Order as Alternative Appellate Remedy Was Available
The State conceded that Ext.P2 was not a notice under Section 74 but maintained that Ext.P3 was the actual statutory notice issued in Form GST DRC-01 under Rule 142(1)(a) of the GST Rules. The State further argued that the appellant had earlier accepted Ext.P3 as a valid show cause notice, as reflected in Ext.P5 reply submitted in response to Exts.P3 and P4. According to the State, the challenge raised later through written argument notes was only an afterthought.
