2024 (12) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... preshow cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 3. Mr Shah learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though Rule 142 (1-A), post its amendment with effect from 15 October 2020, substitutes the word 'may' for the word 'shall', still the impugned show cause notice is infirm because the same relates to the period before the amendment. He submits that issuing a pre-show cause notice was mandatory for this period. He refers to and relies upon 'M/s New Morning Star Travels Vs. The Deputy Commissioner' 2023 (10) TMI 1246 and 'Skyline Automation Industries Vs. State of UP' 2023 (68) GSTL 235 (All.) to submit that the two High Courts have taken a view the same was mandatory in similar circumstances. He also refers to an order made by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp;2024 (9) TMI 1215. But pointed out that in the said matter, the only issue was whether the hearing was required to be granted at the stage of pre-show cause notice. He submitted that this is not the issue being raised for our present consideration, and therefore, 'M/s Shri Sharma Steeltech' (Supra) would be inapplicable. 7. At this stage, we are not deciding on the contention about the requirement or otherwise of a pre-show cause notice. We propose to leave this issue open to be considered by the authority which has issued a show cause notice, but we are more concerned with interference at the issue of the show cause notice. 8. The Rajasthan High Court has referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of 'Commissioner ....