2021 (12) TMI 657 - HC - GST

Validity of SCN - SCN challenged on the ground that there is predetermination - Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The show cause notices details and articulates the case of the respondent. It is for the petitioner to reply to the show cause notices to have the goods cleared. If the goods were really meant to be sent to Karnataka for which the petitioner had allegedly paid IGST amounting to ₹ 38,79,019/- under the provisions of IGST Act, 2017, no useful purpose will be served by quashing the show cause notices by directing the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notices. It would only further delay the clearance of the imported consignments. These writ petitions are disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file additional representations and reply to the impugned show cause notices immediately.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notices under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on predetermination.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned show cause notices, alleging predetermination by the respondent, seeking their quashing. The petitioner cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a relevant case to support their argument. The petitioner imported two consignments of Oxygen cylinders from a foreign supplier, cleared them through customs, paid applicable customs duty and IGST, and intended to transport them to Karnataka. However, the lorry carrying the consignments was intercepted and detained after clearance, leading to the issuance of show cause notices. The petitioner contended that the show cause notices were issued with a preconceived notion of violation, warranting their quashing.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the show cause notices should be quashed due to alleged pre-determination of CGST and SGST violations. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel maintained that there was no pre-determination in the notices, emphasizing that they merely called upon the petitioner to justify why Central and State GST should not be demanded. The court examined the show cause notices and the petitioner's response, noting that the notices outlined the respondent's case and required the petitioner's reply for customs clearance. The court opined that quashing the notices and requesting fresh ones would only delay the consignments' clearance, especially considering the petitioner's prior payment of IGST.

In its judgment, the court disposed of the writ petitions by allowing the petitioner to file additional representations and replies to the show cause notices promptly. The respondent was directed to make decisions on the merits and in compliance with the law within 15 days from the court order's receipt. If no violations were established, the goods were to be permitted for transportation immediately. The court concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petitions without any costs incurred.