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>Show cause notice set aside for lack of pre-consultation, respondents granted chance to restart proceedings</h1> <h3>M/s. NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE SUPERINTENDENT (AUDIT), THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER</h3> M/s. NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA, THE SUPERINTENDENT (AUDIT), THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER - 2022 (63) ... Issues:1. Validity of show cause notice and audit notes.2. Absence of mandatory pre-show cause notice.3. Compliance with circular regarding consultation.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of show cause notice and audit notesThe petitioner, engaged in construction, faced discrepancies noted during an audit for the period October 2016 to June 2017. Despite objections raised by the petitioner regarding the audit notes, a show cause notice was issued alleging service tax underpayment. The petitioner challenged the legality of the show cause notice and audit notes, claiming they were unauthorized and contrary to the law.Issue 2: Absence of mandatory pre-show cause noticeThe petitioner argued that the show cause notice was invalid due to the absence of a mandatory pre-show cause notice, as required by the Master Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The respondents contended that the audit notes did contain the required Document Identification Number (DIN), albeit with an additional digit due to an error. They justified the urgency of issuing the show cause notice to avoid time bar limitations.Issue 3: Compliance with circular regarding consultationThe Court examined the mandatory requirement of pre-show cause notice consultation as per the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The circular emphasized the importance of consultation to promote voluntary compliance and reduce the necessity of issuing show cause notices. The Court held that the circular was binding on the department and its officers, citing relevant judgments.In the judgment, the Court found the show cause notice issued without the mandatory pre-show cause consultation to be arbitrary and against the circular. Consequently, the Court set aside the show cause notice but granted liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, starting from the pre-show cause notice consultation stage within 60 days. The writ petition was allowed, with the respondents given the opportunity to proceed afresh in compliance with the circular requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
