2022 (12) TMI 1371 - HC - GST

Validity of SCN - petitioner challenges the legality of the notices, on the ground that the authority while issuing the impugned notice has already made up their mind and that on the similar issue earlier central authority has already dropped the proceeding - HELD THAT - This writ petition is premature since the petitioner has not replied to the impugned showcause notices and it is its mere apprehension that if it files the objection that will not be considered by the authority who issued the impugned show-cause notices. It is a well settled principle of law that against the show-cause notices, writ court should be very reluctant to interfere unless the authority who issued the show-cause notices having inherent lack of jurisdiction or the notice is patently contrary to law. Petitioner will have ample opportunity to raise all the points in its objection to the impugned show-cause notices and will have also opportunity of personal hearing before the authority but still petitioner does not want to avail this opportunity and seeks to invoke constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court. By a decision of the three Judges Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of INDO ASAHI GLASS CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS 2001 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT where it has been held that the appropriate recourse against a show cause notice is to file a reply to the same and to take whatever defence is open to the petitioner. This writ petition is not entertained by holding that the same as premature and on the ground of alternative remedy - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned show-cause notices without replying, Prematurity of the writ petition, Jurisdiction of the authority, Alternative remedy available.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging show-cause notices dated 26th September, 2022, for the period July 2017 to June 2022, without responding to the notices. The petitioners argued that the authority had already made up its mind, and similar proceedings by the central authority had been dropped earlier. However, the judge found the petition premature as the petitioners had not replied to the notices and expressed mere apprehension that their objections would not be considered. The judge emphasized that interference by a writ court against show-cause notices should be minimal unless there is a lack of jurisdiction or the notice is blatantly illegal. The petitioners were reminded of their opportunity to raise all points in their objections and have a personal hearing before the authority. Despite this, the petitioners chose to seek relief through constitutional writ jurisdiction.

The judge cited a Supreme Court decision in the case of Indo Asahi Glass Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. (2002) 254 ITR 210 (SC), which emphasized the importance of filing a reply to a show-cause notice and presenting all available defenses. Based on the discussions, the judge declined to entertain the writ petition, deeming it premature and citing the availability of an alternative remedy. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed (WPA 26092 of 2022).