GST show cause notice must disclose precise contraventions; vague notice can be quashed despite alternative appellate remedy.

A GST show cause notice must state the alleged contraventions with precision and cannot be sustained if issued in a vague, standard-form manner that fails to disclose the basis of liability. Such deficiency violates fair procedure and natural justice, so the consequent demand proceedings are liable to be quashed. The availability of an appellate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge is to a foundational defect in the notice and the noticee has been denied a meaningful opportunity to defend. The impugned notice and consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings from the stage of a lawful notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was vitiated for being vague and for not stating the contraventions with specificity. (ii) Whether the availability of an appeal under Section 107(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 barred writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was vitiated for being vague and for not stating the contraventions with specificity.

Analysis: The notice was issued in a standard format without striking out irrelevant portions and without clearly spelling out the alleged contravention. A show cause notice under the GST framework must disclose the precise grounds so that the noticee is given a fair opportunity to answer the charge. A vague notice that does not indicate the basis of liability fails to satisfy the statutory requirement and offends fair procedure.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be vague and unsustainable, and the consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an appeal under Section 107(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 barred writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on violation of natural justice at the threshold stage itself. Where the foundation of proceedings is materially defective and the noticee is denied a proper opportunity to defend, the existence of an alternative appellate remedy does not preclude exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned show cause notice and consequential GST demand proceedings were set aside, with liberty to the department to commence fresh proceedings from the stage of a lawful show cause notice in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A GST show cause notice must clearly and specifically state the alleged contraventions; a vague notice issued without disclosing the charge violates natural justice and can be interdicted in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy.

---