TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court declines interference with show cause notice, questions CGST Act provision legality</h1> <h3>Unifab Engineering Project Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Versus The Deputy Commissioner CGST and CEX, Circle-VIII, Group-VIII and ors.</h3> Unifab Engineering Project Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Versus The Deputy Commissioner CGST and CEX, Circle-VIII, Group-VIII and ors. - TMI Issues:Challenge to show cause-cum-demand notice dated July 29, 2021; Challenge to the vires of section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:The High Court of Bombay, comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Karnik, heard a writ petition challenging a show cause-cum-demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner CGST & CEX. The notice sought an explanation from the petitioners regarding proposed actions. The petitioners also contested the validity of section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act. The court, after hearing the petitioners' advocate, found no immediate reason to interfere with the show cause notice, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, due to the challenge against the vires of section 16(2)(c), the court decided to issue notice to the respondents, returnable on January 11, 2022. The petitioners were directed to notify the Attorney General for the Union of India due to the challenge to the specific section of the CGST Act.The court clarified that the pendency of the writ petition would not prevent the respondent from continuing the proceedings related to the impugned show cause notice. Any orders resulting from such proceedings would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The petitioners were advised that they could participate in the proceedings without compromising their rights and contentions in the ongoing writ petition. The court's decision to issue notice to the respondents and involve the Attorney General indicated a significant step towards addressing the challenge to the vires of the specific section of the CGST Act. The court's approach of allowing parallel proceedings while ensuring that the outcome of the writ petition would impact any orders passed demonstrated a balanced consideration of the legal issues involved in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
