GST show-cause notice challenge failed: omission of the word "suppression" did not invalidate the notice, and writ relief was premature.

The contents of a GST show-cause notice, not the omission of the word "suppression," determine its legal character. A notice issued under Section 74 referring to alleged ineligibility to transition credit and non-declaration of facts was not vitiated merely because it did not expressly use that term; the questions of suppression and limitation were left to the adjudicating authority after reply. A writ petition against the notice was also not maintainable at that stage, because such notices are ordinarily not interfered with unless wholly without jurisdiction and the taxpayer had an effective statutory opportunity to respond.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show-cause notice was liable to be interfered with on the ground that it did not expressly use the word "suppression" and was issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (ii) Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice was maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the show-cause notice was liable to be interfered with on the ground that it did not expressly use the word "suppression" and was issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The notice was examined in the light of the grounds stated in it, including the alleged ineligibility to transition credit, the reference to non-declaration of facts, and the invocation of the statutory scheme under Section 74. Explanation 2 to Section 74 defines "suppression" in terms of non-declaration or failure to furnish information. The omission to use the word "suppression" by itself was held not to be decisive, because the real nature of the notice depends on its contents and the questions of suppression and limitation were matters for determination by the adjudicating authority after the reply is filed.

Conclusion: The notice was not vitiated on this ground and no interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice was maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that writ petitions are ordinarily not entertained against mere show-cause notices unless the notice is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction. The Court treated the GST enactment as a complete code and held that the petitioner had an effective opportunity to respond before the authority. The availability of objections before the issuing authority and the absence of a jurisdictional defect taking the notice outside the statutory framework weighed against entertaining the writ petition at the threshold.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and the petitioner was required to respond to the notice before the competent authority.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the notice failed, and the petitioner was left to pursue objections in the statutory proceedings before the proper authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The contents of a show-cause notice, not the mere label or omission of a particular word, determine its legal character, and a writ court will ordinarily not interfere with such notice unless it is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction.

---