Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
Saha Distributors Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Director General (East), Directorate General Of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.
1. Challenging two separate show cause notices both dated 26th July, 2024 issued under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), inter alia, including consequential order under Section 73(9) of the said Act dated 14th December, 2024 and 28th October, 2024, the instant writ petition has been filed.
2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondents could not have proceeded to issue show cause so as to deny the availment and/or utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the petitioner in respect of the purchases made by the petitioner from suppliers whose registration under the said Act has been subsequently cancelled.
3. It is also the petitioner’s contention that the right to avail ITC having been statutorily provided for in Section 16 of the said Act, the show cause notices are primarily without jurisdiction as the same does not identify infraction of any of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the said Act. Since, the show cause is without jurisdiction, the consequential orders passed under Section 74 of the said Act is also bad and consequentially a nullity and should not be acted upon.
The court held that the provisions enabling the denial of Input Tax Credit are within jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for statutory adherence in taxation disputes.
Show-cause notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act can coexist for the same tax period if based on distinct grounds, and petitioners must pursue available appellate remedies before see....
Proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot be initiated without evidence of fraud or misstatement if prior proceedings under Section 73 have been concluded.
The court ruled that retroactive tax demands must be supported by appropriate show cause notices as per statutory requirements; failure to issue such notices invalidates new assessments.
Petitioner must substantiate claims of timely payments for input tax credit; authority's findings upheld due to lack of evidence.
The denial of Input Tax Credit requires verification of the supplier's tax payment, and unilateral action against the recipient without such verification is arbitrary.
The court determined that prior dismissal of proceedings under Section 61 does not prevent initiation of actions under Section 74 when fraud is alleged, affirming legislative intent regarding fraud i....
Dual proceedings concerning the same subject matter initiated by State GST authorities after Central GST proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
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
