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>Writ Against GST Show Cause Rejected; Remedy Lies in Appeal to Challenge Noncompliance with Rule 142(1A)</h1> <h3>United Engineering Co. Versus Superintendent Range VI Div VI CGST Thane Commissionerate.</h3> HC declined to entertain the writ petition challenging SCN on the ground of non-issuance of a pre-show cause notice under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to SCN on the ground that they were not preceded by a pre-show cause notice as contemplated u/r 142 (1A) of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Now that the impugned show cause notices are disposed of vide order dated 22 November 2025, the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appealing the same. In such an Appeal, it will always be open to the Petitioner to raise the contention about the mandatory nature of Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules or the consequences regarding noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 142(1A). As it is, the Rule has been amended by introducing the expression ‘may’ with effect from 15 October 2020. The issue about the mandatory nature of this Rule is therefore wide open, and nothing prevents the Petitioner from raising all such contentions before the Appellate Authority. Considering the precedents referred to in Pidilite Industries Ltd [2024 (12) TMI 933 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], including the decision in Oberoi Constructions Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors [2024 (11) TMI 588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] it is not found that this is a case where we should entertain this Petition by deviating from the practice of exhaustion of alternate statutory remedies. It is declined to entertain this Petition but grant the Petitioner liberty to challenge the order dated 22 November 2025 disposing of the impugned show cause notices before the Appellate Authority by raising all contentions, including those raised in the present Petition. Petition disposed off. The petition challenged show cause notices dated 29 and 30 June 2025 on the ground that they were not preceded by a pre-show cause notice as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules. During pendency, the notices were adjudicated by orders dated 22 November 2025, and the petitioner sought to amend the petition to assail those orders. Relying on Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2025) 26 Centax 83 (Bom.), where a similar challenge to show cause notices was not entertained and liberty was granted to raise such objections before the authority, the Court held that 'no case is made out to entertain this Petition.' The fact that, in the present case, the show cause notices had culminated in final orders was held not to be a distinguishing feature. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternate and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal against the orders dated 22 November 2025. In such appeal, the petitioner may raise all contentions, including on the 'mandatory nature of Rule 142(1A)' and consequences of noncompliance, especially as the Rule now uses 'may' w.e.f. 15 October 2020. Following the principle of exhaustion of alternate remedies, the petition was disposed of with liberty to appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
