Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
MAHESH MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges show cause notice jurisdiction. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments center on the notice's legitimacy and the petitioner's connection. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court emphasizes necessity for the petitioner to respond. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. disposition requiring response to legal notice without court intervention. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is admittedly not an assessee/tax payer with reference to the provisions of the CGST Act , 2017/ SGST Act, 2017/ IGST Act, 2017, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the show cause notice at Ext.P1 issued under the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST Act .
2. I have heard Sri.Akhil Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Sreelal N. Warrier, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
3. The contention raised by Sri.Akhil Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is to the effect that the petitioner herein has been proceeded against with reference to the activities of one M/s Vaikom Enterprises, which is a proprietary concern of one Milton Paul, who is the primary noticee in Ext.P1 notice. According to him, the notice at Ext.P1 has been issued essentia
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
