Case Law Details
ALM Industries Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (AE) Central Goods and Services and 2 others (Allahabad High Court)
In the case ALM Industries Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (AE), CGST & Others, the petitioner challenged a notice dated August 4, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (AE), CGST, Meerut. The petitioner argued that this notice, addressing alleged misclassification of poultry feed supplements as exempted instead of taxable at 5%, was issued for the same period as an earlier show cause notice dated July 30, 2024. The earlier notice pertained to Input Tax Credit (ITC) issues related to taxable and exempted supplies without maintaining separate records. The petitioner contended that issuing two notices for the same period was unjustified and burdensome.
The respondents clarified that the two notices addressed entirely different issues, and there was no legal bar against issuing multiple notices for the same period on distinct matters. Furthermore, the respondents stated that the issue of taxability on poultry feed supplements was already under examination by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), New Delhi, and thus was excluded from the earlier notice. The court examined the records and observed that since the notices dealt with separate subject matters, their issuance was legally valid.
The court also addressed the petitioner’s concern about appearing before different authorities for adjudication. It advised the petitioner to approach the respective authorities to request a joint hearing if deemed feasible. The court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the validity of the notices and dismissed the petition with the direction to the petitioner to seek administrative resolution for consolidated adjudication if necessary. This judgment underscores the legality of multiple notices for distinct issues within the same tax period, provided procedural and substantive independence is maintained.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the notice dated 4.8.2024 issued by respondent no.2/3.
2. Submissions have been made that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 30.07.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner (AE), CGST, Meerut in relation to the availment of ITC for effecting taxable as well as exempted supply wherein no separate record was allegedly maintained by the petitioner. However, subsequent thereto, impugned notice dated 04.08.2024 has been issued to the petitioner in relation to mis-classifying the product as in exempted goods instead of taxable at the rate of 5%.
3. Submissions have been made that the respondents are not justified in issuing two notices for the same period and, therefore, the issuance of subsequent notice deserves to be set aside.
4. Counsel for the respondents indicated that admittedly, the subject matters of both the show cause notices are totally different and independent to each other and there is no bar in law in issuing more than one show cause notice for the same period on different subject matters. It has been further indicated that in the show cause notice dated 30.07.2024 issued to the petitioner, the fact that issue pertaining to applicability of tax on supply of poultry feed supplements which were cleared by the petitioner as exempted supply, has already been taken up by the DGGI-HQ, New Delhi and, therefore, the said aspect was not being taken into consideration, was specifically noticed and in those circumstances, the issuance of notice dated 04.08.2024 cannot be questioned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that for the same period, the petitioner would be required to appear before the different authorities, which will be cumbersome and may lead to contrary findings.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
7. A bare perusal of the show cause notices issued to the petitioner reveals that the subject matter of both the notices is totally different from each other and, therefore, apparently there is no bar in law in issuing two show cause notices for the same period with a different/distinct subject matter and, therefore, to that extent, no interference to the show cause notice is made out.
8. So far as the plea pertaining to two show cause notices being adjudicated by two different authorities is concerned, the petitioner would be free to approach the said authorities and, in case, petitioner approaches the said authorities, the authority would take a view on the subject and examine viability of both the show cause notices being adjudicated by the same authority.
9. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Author Bio
