9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 363 - HC - GSTLevy of GST - un-denatured Extra Neutral Alcohol - HELD THAT - As rightly contended by the respondents, it is only a show-cause notice issued by respondent No. 1 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. An option was also given to seek personal hearing. Even though, there is no explanation by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him, the petitioner has rushed to this court seeking to quash the show-cause notice on several grounds and such grounds could have been raised by the petitioner in his written explanation as to why said show-cause notice could not have been issued. The Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA OTHERS VERSUS COASTAL CONTAINER TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION OTHERS 2019 (2) TMI 1497 - SUPREME COURT frowned upon the practice of approaching this Court on issuance of show-cause notice, without giving written explanation to enable the authority to consider his defence and to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the petitioner has rushed to this court to challenge the show-cause notice without availing the opportunity given to him to submit his written explanation. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to Show Cause Notice for GST on Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) 2. Authority of Respondents to issue Show Cause Notice 3. Requirement of submitting written explanation before challenging Show Cause Notice 4. Maintainability of the writ petition Analysis: 1. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash a Show Cause Notice issued by respondent No. 1, demanding GST on un-denatured Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) supplied by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that ENA, being un-denatured spirit, is not covered under the relevant notification for GST. The petitioner sought relief through a writ of certiorari or prohibition to challenge the Notice. 2. The respondents contended that they had the authority under Central Government notification to levy GST and issue the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner failed to submit a written explanation in response to the Notice, as required under Section 50 of the GST Act. The respondents relied on legal provisions to justify the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. 3. The High Court emphasized the importance of submitting a written explanation before challenging a Show Cause Notice. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide any reasonable explanation for not submitting the required response. The court highlighted that the petitioner rushed to the court without availing the opportunity to present his case through a written explanation, which is essential for the competent authority to consider the defense. 4. In the judgment, the High Court referred to legal precedents, including a decision of the Apex Court, which discouraged challenging Show Cause Notices without first submitting a written explanation. The court held that the petitioner's failure to comply with the procedural requirement rendered the writ petition not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the importance of following due process and exhausting available remedies before approaching the court.
|
