Transitional GST credit notice quashed where reliance on an inoperative amendment created a jurisdictional defect.

A show-cause notice proposing denial and recovery of transitional GST credit was vulnerable because it rested on an inoperative statutory premise. The notice relied exclusively on Explanation 3 inserted in Section 140 of the CGST Act to exclude disputed cess amounts, even though the amendments to Explanations 1 and 2 had not been shown to be brought into force. Since Explanation 3 governed Section 140(5) and did not extend to Section 140(1), the jurisdictional basis for the notice was defective. The notice was therefore quashed for want of lawful jurisdiction, though a fresh notice was left open if supported by other valid grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice proposing denial and recovery of transitional credit was liable to be quashed for having been issued on an erroneous legal premise and without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The notice proceeded on the basis that Explanation 3 inserted in Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could, by itself, exclude the disputed cess amounts from the transitional credit scheme. The Amendment Act had brought Section 140(1) into force, but the amendments to Explanations 1 and 2 had not been shown to have been notified into operation. Explanation 3, on its text, governed the expression used in Section 140(5) and did not extend to Section 140(1). In the absence of the operative amendments to Explanations 1 and 2, reliance exclusively on Explanation 3 for issuing the notice reflected a mistaken assumption of jurisdiction and a failure to apply the governing statutory provisions.

Conclusion: The notice was held to suffer from a jurisdictional error and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, while leaving open the authority's liberty to issue a fresh notice if sustainable on other lawful grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A show-cause notice founded on a statutory premise that is not yet operative, and which relies on an inapplicable amendment to assume jurisdiction, is vulnerable to writ interference for want of lawful jurisdiction.

---