Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M.SINGH, SHAIL JAIN
Sugan Traders Through It Proprietor Prop. Abhishek Bindal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the demands raised against them. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
3. On behalf of the Petitioner, two submissions have been made by the ld. Counsel. Firstly, the reply dated 30th August, 2024, which has been filed by the Petitioner to the two Show Cause Notices dated 5th August, 2024 which led to the passing of the impugned orders has not been considered by the Departments.
5. Coming to the plea of limitation, it is seen that both the impugned orders are dated 1st February, 2025, however, but it appears that the DRC-07 was uploaded on 9th February, 2025 on the GST Portal of the Petitioner.
7. Be that as it may,insofar as the reply dated 30th August, 2024,which has been filed by the Petitioner to the two Show Cause Notices dated 5th August, 2024 is concerned, the impugned order dated 9th February, 2025 itself records as under:
Following the principle of natural justice, the noticees were granted personal hearings (PH) on 21.11.2024, 16.12.2024 & 26.12.2024. However, replies from Noticee No. 14, 70 and 86 were received whereas for rest of the noticees neither the noticees nor any of their authorized represen
The existence of alternate remedies under statutory provisions limits the maintainability of writ petitions in tax matters.
The existence of an alternative remedy under statutory provisions limits the maintainability of writ petitions unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The High Court affirmed that the issuance of a consolidated SCN for multiple financial years under the CGST Act is permissible, emphasizing the requirement of statutory compliance and the importance ....
Service of notices via registered email under Section 169(1)(c) is adequate under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, affirming no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice occurred.
The issuance of the Show Cause Notice was timely under Section 73 of the CGST Act, and the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity for a hearing, thereby validating the demand order.
Procedural fairness requires that parties receive adequate notice and opportunity to respond before demands or penalties are enforced by administrative authorities.
Notifications under the GST Act must adhere to procedural requirements, ensuring parties receive fair opportunity to respond to demands initiated by show cause notices.
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
