GST show cause notice not quashed at threshold where jurisdiction depended on disputed facts about supply and place of supply.

A writ challenge to a GST show cause notice was rejected as premature where jurisdiction depended on disputed facts about the location of supply, the place from which services were rendered, the recipient's location, and the maintenance of project accounts. The HC noted that the alleged lack of jurisdiction was not patent on the face of the record and that applicability of GST required examination of the statutory rules on supply and place of supply. Because the notice itself did not show an ex facie jurisdictional defect and a show cause notice ordinarily does not cause legal prejudice at that stage, interference at the threshold was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned show cause notice was without jurisdiction on the ground that the underlying construction project was executed outside India and, therefore, not amenable to GST, and whether a writ petition challenging the notice was premature.

Analysis: The challenge turned on factual questions concerning the location of supply, the place from which the service was rendered, the recipient's location, and the manner in which receipts, expenditure, and accounts relating to the Mauritius project were maintained. In such circumstances, the alleged lack of jurisdiction was not patent on the face of the record. The applicability of GST depended upon examination of the statutory provisions governing supply and place of supply, and the show cause notice itself did not suffer from an ex facie jurisdictional defect. A mere show cause notice does not by itself cause legal prejudice warranting interference, particularly when the objection raised requires factual adjudication.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was not liable to be quashed at the threshold, and the writ challenge was premature; the objection of want of jurisdiction was rejected.

---