Back
M. S. SONAK, JITENDRA JAIN
Oberoi Constructions Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per M. S. Sonak, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that a common judgment and order can dispose of these petitions.
3. In Writ Petition (L) No.33260/2023(OS), Writ Petition No.1762/2024(OS), Writ Petition No.3402/2024(OS), Writ Petition No.3629/2024(OS), the challenge is to the show cause notice issued by the respondent under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) and Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act).
4. In Writ Petition No.3624/2024(OS), the challenge is also to the show cause notice, but pending this petition, the show cause notice was disposed of by order dated 30 April 2024. Therefore, leave is applied by interim application (L) No.23337/2024 to amend the petition and to challenge the order dated 30 April 2024. In Writ Petition No.3085/2024(OS), the challenge is to the order dated 29 December 2023, inter alia, on the ground that the show cause notice itself was infirm.
5. In effect, therefore, the challenges in these petitions are mainly to the show cause notices issued to the petitioners, giving them an oppor
Writ petitions challenging show cause notices should not be entertained unless exceptional circumstances exist; petitioners must exhaust statutory remedies available under tax laws.
Writ petitions against quasi-judicial authorities are not maintainable if statutory remedies are available unless exceptional circumstances like natural justice violations are proven.
The court emphasized that while an alternative remedy is available, the High Court has the discretion to entertain a writ petition. The court also highlighted that the availability of an alternative ....
Court held that proper grounds for invoking extended limitation for tax demands must demonstrate intent to evade payment, and procedural fairness must be maintained in tax assessments.
The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before judicial intervention, stating that jurisdictional questions must be resolved through investigation by the appropriate autho....
Service tax cannot be imposed merely on presumptions; actual liability must be proven, and the extended limitation period for tax recovery requires clear evidence of misconduct or evasion.
It is over enthusiasm of the officer to advance the departmental cause that without grasping the ratio on the subject and disregard to the settled principles of law that he has initiated the action a....
Court held that tax demands require adherence to statutory limits, and if payment is made prior to notice issuance, penalties are not justified.
In cases of revenue disputes, undue delay in adjudication of show cause notices violates fundamental rights and regulatory statutes, rendering them invalid.
Tax liability must be established based on actual statutory provisions, not presumptions; authorities cannot invoke extended limitation without finding willful non-disclosure.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
