TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by which the Petitioners' Application under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act"), for correcting, what the Petitioners described as an error apparent on the face of the record in the show cause notice dated 30 June 2025, was rejected. 3. The Petitioners have also independently challenged the show cause notice dated 30 June 2025, on the ground that it violates the provision of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Armour Security (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate And Anr. (2025) 145 GSTR 385. 4. Mr Jain submitted that the impugned show cause notice dated 30 June 2025 does not give credence to the taxes already paid b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocumentary evidence of payments as claimed, we see no reason to doubt that the adjudicating authority would not consider it. This approach of seeking rectification of a show cause notice seems to be a tactic to delay the adjudication process related to the show-cause notice for as long as possible. 8. The show-cause notice, by itself, imposes no liability or raises no binding demands upon the petitioner. If the petitioners believe that figures stated therein are excessive or erroneous, they can always point out the alleged errors in the show-cause notice in their response. The adjudicating authority would then consider such a cause or contention. But, resorting to Section 161 simply to correct what the petitioners perceive is an error, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 161 of the CGST Act. These matters will need to be examined during the adjudication proceedings if the petitioners raise such issues in response to the show-cause notice. The writ Court also cannot be expected to examine such disputed issues, particularly when the purpose of raising such disputed issues in this manner appears to be a ploy to take a chance and see if some interim relief could be wriggled out to stall or at least delay the adjudication proceedings as long as possible. 12. Regarding the hearing, we observe that the impugned rejection does not dismiss the petitioners' claims on the merits but solely because of the absence of an apparent error on the face of the record. In any case, we have heard the learned Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e verified. All these matters need not be examined in these proceedings when the petitioners have not made out any exceptional case to deviate from the normal practice of not entertaining writ petitions unless all alternate remedies are exhausted. 15. The Petitioner should at least place such facts by responding to the show cause notice. Apart from some overlap, even the periods for which the impugned show-cause notice is issued, at least prima facie, appear to be different. A mere assertion that the issue is common is not sufficient to make out a case that the impugned show-cause notice is wholly without jurisdiction to attract the principle in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors (1998) 8 SCC 1.....