TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge a show cause notice issued under Section 74 and Section 74A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The petition challenges the validity of a show cause notice issued under Sections 74 and 74A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court examined the pleadings and noted that the petitioner himself pleaded that he was the supplier. The Court relied on the established principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not available to decide the merits of revenue demands raised by way of a show cause notice, as reflected in binding precedents. The Court observed that the other grounds raised by the petitioner could not be adjudicated in a writ petition which is directed only against the show cause notice. The petitioner was, however, permitted procedural relief to file a reply to the notice and have his contentions considered by the competent authority without prejudice.
Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the show cause notice is dismissed; liberty granted to the petitioner to file a reply within 15 days, and the competent authority to consider the reply without being influenced by the Court's observations or the respondent's reply. In favour of Respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
