Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable against the GST demand order in view of the statutory appellate remedy, and whether there was any violation of natural justice for want of personal hearing under the GST framework.
Analysis: The notices and final order were treated as proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioners did not file replies to the show-cause notices and did not request a personal hearing, while the statute contemplates hearing upon appropriate request. The Court held that, in these circumstances, there was no violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act or of the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the impugned order raised issues that were available to be challenged in appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, and the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked after the appellate limitation had expired. Rule 142 of the CGST Rules was not accepted as a basis to bypass the statutory remedy.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained and were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and seek condonation of delay as available in law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxable person does not respond to the show-cause notice or seek a hearing, and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ relief is ordinarily not maintainable absent a demonstrable breach of natural justice.