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 the writ petition challenging show cause notices and consequent demand orders under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is maintainable on grounds of denial of fair opportunity of hearing and to avoid the statutory pre-deposit requirement, notwithstanding availability of an alternative appellate remedy.
Analysis: The proceedings under challenge arose after notices under Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and subsequent show cause notices under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; the show cause notices and final orders were uploaded on the common portal in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner did not respond to the notices under Section 61 nor to the show cause notices issued under Section 73 and did not seek a personal hearing before the Proper Officer within the time provided. Medical incapacity was asserted for non-participation, but no reply was filed with the authority when the show cause notices were pending. The challenges to factual determinations and clerical mismatches in GSTR-1/3B are matters that can be agitated before the Appellate Authority, subject to the statutory pre-deposit and limitation conditions. The petition invoking writ jurisdiction was primarily to avoid the statutory pre-deposit and to re-litigate issues which the statutory appeal mechanism is equipped to decide.
Conclusion: Writ petition dismissed on the ground that there was no violation of the principle of natural justice and an alternate remedy by way of appeal is available; the petition is not maintainable to bypass the statutory pre-deposit requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxpayer fails to avail the opportunity of hearing before the proper officer and an effective statutory appellate remedy exists subject to pre-deposit and limitation conditions, writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised to re-open disputed tax demands or to avoid statutory pre-deposit requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
