TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition has been filed by the Petitioner M/s Dawn Express Courier Del Private Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Show Cause Notice issued by Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter, 'SCN') dated 29th June, 2025 issued to the Petitioner, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why the demands and penalties ought not to be imposed on the Petitioner. The amount sought to be demanded is Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter, 'GST') amounting to Rs. 32,82,37,775/- along with the penalties of the above amount. 3. The chronology of events leading to filing of the present petition is that the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit (hereinafter, 'DGGI') started an inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ummon is dated 13th June, 2025, the same was communicated to the Petitioner by an email dated 20th June, 2025. Thus, the Petitioner could not have appeared at all. This fact was highlighted by the Petitioner in its communication dated 20th June, 2025 and an extension was sought till 31st July, 2025 to submit a complete and substantiated response with all the documents. This letter was communicated to the Respondent Department on 21st June, 2025 by email. 6. A second summons was issued to the Petitioner for appearance on 25th June, 2025 and the same was communicated to the Petitioner on 24th June, 2025 by an email, giving just one day's time. 7. The Petitioner then wrote a letter dated 26th June, 2025 wherein he again sought time till ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lanning to file the writ petition challenging the SCN. 12. Finally, it is submitted by ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the manner in which summons were issued one day before the hearing itself would show that this is a complete non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. 13. On behalf of the GST Department, Mr. Anurag Ojha, ld. SSC submits that Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, as it then stood, mandated the pre-notice consultation prior to the issuance of SCN. However, with effect from 09th October, 2019, the same is discretionary. Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules reads as under: "142. ...[(1A) The [proper officer may], before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty, under sub-section (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee to make an own ascertainment of tax if the GST Department does not communicate the amount of tax which it intends to demand from the Petitioner. This has clearly not been done. 18. According to the Petitioner, it has already paid the entire tax of Rs. 44 lakhs and no further amount is due. Under these circumstances, even the opportunity of pre-notice consultation under Rule 142 of the CGST Rules would have been of no purpose. 19. Even if a pre-notice consultation was issued with any specific amount, the Petitioner would have obviously not agreed, as even today, the stand of the Petitioner is that no amount is liable to be paid. 20. Under these circumstances, the challenge to the SCN on the ground of Rule 142 of the CGST Rules ....