GST show-cause notices: writ interference is limited unless lack of jurisdiction or exceptional illegality is prima facie shown.

Cross-empowerment under the GST regime and section 6 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are discussed as the basis on which State officers may issue a show-cause notice in specified circumstances, and the jurisdictional objection was treated as unestablished on the face of the record. The note also explains that writ interference at the notice stage is ordinarily unavailable unless the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or another exceptional illegality is shown. Allegations relating to input tax credit mismatch, prior intimation, and compliance with GST procedure are identified as disputed factual matters for the statutory authority, with the taxpayer directed to pursue the ordinary adjudicatory remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State tax authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice in view of cross-empowerment and assignment of the assessee's assessment to Central tax authorities; (ii) Whether alleged non-compliance with the statutory procedure governing issuance of the show-cause notice justified interference at the notice stage.

Issue (i): Whether the State tax authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice in view of cross-empowerment and assignment of the assessee's assessment to Central tax authorities.

Analysis: Section 6 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 authorises proper officers under the State law in specified circumstances. The jurisdictional objection raised against the notice was examined in the light of the statutory scheme and the earlier decision upholding the validity and working of cross-empowerment under the GST regime. The alleged lack of jurisdiction was not found to be established on the face of the record so as to warrant writ interference at the threshold.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged non-compliance with the statutory procedure governing issuance of the show-cause notice justified interference at the notice stage.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised against a show-cause notice unless the notice is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or otherwise exceptional. Allegations concerning discrepancy in input tax credit, prior intimation, and compliance with the prescribed GST procedures involved disputed factual questions and were matters for adjudication by the authority. No exceptional circumstance justifying bypass of the statutory process was made out.

Conclusion: Interference at the show-cause notice stage was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the notice failed, and the petitioner was relegated to pursue the statutory remedy before the authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not ordinarily quash a tax show-cause notice unless lack of jurisdiction or another exceptional illegality is prima facie established; disputed factual issues must be left to the statutory authority.

---