TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash and set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P/7). (ii) Alternatively, issue a Writ of Mandamus to Respondent No. 3 directing it to adjudicate upon the Preliminary Objections filed by the Petitioner and consequently pass a reasoned, speaking order. (iii) Pass any other further orders that this Hon'ble High Court deem fit in the interest of justice." 2. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-company is engaged in the design and construction of various roads and highway projects. The petitioner is also registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and M.P. Goods and Serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ite office) 2,69,014/- Post Supply Cancellation of Vendors 1,06,61,438/- Total 1,52,56,431/- 4. The petitioner filed a preliminary objection to question the validity of the impugned SCN and now filed the present petition before this Court seeking quashment of SCN. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the tax period pertaining to which this notice under Rule 142(1A) and the present SCN have been issued, is 2018-19. Both the notices are based on the allegation of evasion of tax by way of fraud or willful misstatement. The allegations of fraud and willful evasion as they are very vague and no such details have been given in it. Therefore, such notice is unsustainable in law. The authorities could ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any fraud, or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of SCN issued to sister concern of the petitioner M/s Varanasi Sangam Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of State Tax vide order dated 8.10.2025 passed in Writ Tax No.1028 of 2025. 6. Shri Bhuwan Gautam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has already filed reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner is free to raise all these grounds before the proper officer. After passing the order in original, the petitioner shall have a remedy under Section 107 of the MPGST Act to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Act to evade tax under this Act may, in writing, inspect any place of business of the taxable person or the person engaged in the business. Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that any person said to have evaded or is attempting to evade the payment of any tax, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize the accounts, registers or documents of such person. The power of arrest has been given under Section 69. After completing such inspection, search and seizure, the proper officer either may issue notice under Section 73 or under Section 74 to the assessee. The difference between both the sections is regarding period of limitation, which is 3 years and 5 years respectively. Therefore, at this stage, once the show cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue will also be decided by the authority after considering the material against the petitioner. 10. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Others v/s Greatship (India) Limited reported in (2022) 17 SCC 332 has held that the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order and ought to have relegated the writ petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. Paragraphs 14 to 17 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below: "14. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against th....