https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782898 HC held that issuance of a pre-SCN consultation notice under Rule 142(1A) is not mandatory, particularly in cases involving large-scale, complex fraudulent availment of ITC across multiple entities. The Court declined to interfere with the SCN issued after the effective date of the relevant notification and noted that the pending challenge to the notification does not vitiate the proceedings. The amount already deposited during investigation may be treated as part of the required pre-deposit. Observing that the period of limitation for appeal had not expired, HC relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act and disposed of the writ petition. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782898 HC held that issuance of a pre-SCN consultation notice under Rule 142(1A) is not mandatory, particularly in cases involving large-scale, complex fraudulent availment of ITC across multiple entities. The Court declined to interfere with the SCN issued after the effective date of the relevant notification and noted that the pending challenge to the notification does not vitiate the proceedings. The amount already deposited during investigation may be treated as part of the required pre-deposit. Observing that the period of limitation for appeal had not expired, HC relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act and disposed of the writ petition. Case-Laws GST Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782898