TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 482
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Taluk Office, Greenways Road, Chennai 600028. 3.The impugned Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 is pursuant to an intimation in Form GST ASMT 10 dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Respondent for the tax period 2021-2022, wherein the Petitioner was called upon by the Respondent to file a reply on or before 21.09.2025. The Petitioner filed a Reply on 19.09.2025 to the aforesaid Intimation dated 22.08.2025. 4.The challenge to impugned Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 is primarily on the ground that earlier an Intimation in FORM GST DRC 01A dated 06.05.2025 was issued for the same tax period i.e., 2021-2022 to the Petitioner. 5.Before the Petitioner could respond to the aforesaid Intimation in FORM GST DRC 1A dated 06.05.2025, a Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025 was issued to the Petitioner for the same tax period viz., 2021-2022. 6.The Petitioner therefore approached this Court in W.P.No.23660 of 2025 against the said Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court vide its Order dated 31.07.2025 ordered as under:- "(i) The summary of show cause notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GST DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025 is extracted below:- ITC to be reversed on non-business transactions and exempt supplies: Sl. No. Description Table No. in GSTR Value of outward SGST CGST IGST CESS Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 5N 7555239 - - - - - - 2 Exempt supplies 5C+5D+5E+5F 19001 - - - - - 3 Common Input Tax Credit 4A of GSTR - 3B - 33648082 33648082 11994426 0 79290590 4 ITC to be reversed (3*2/1) - 841 841 300 0 1982 5 ITC reversed 7C * 7D - 0 0 0 0 0 6 Excess ITC claimed - 841 841 300 0 1982 12.In the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 issued for the tax period 2021-2022, there are three discrepancies which have been pointed out against the Petitioner. 13.The extract of three heads of discrepancies raised in the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 against the Petitioner for the tax period 2021-2022 are extracted below:- Discrepancy No.1 S.No. Description Turnover Report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 2 CGST 115738 0 11574 0 127312 3 SGST 115738 0 11574 0 127312 4 CESS 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 19506563 0 1950657 0 21457220 16.Thus, there is no duplication barring exempted supply in the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025 which was quashed by this Writ Court vide order dated 31.07.2025 in W.P.No.23660 of 2025 and on account of S.No.1 to Discrepancy No.2 in the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025. 17.The argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that there is no scope for multiple assessment proceedings for the same tax period in the scheme of Section 73 and Rule 142 of respective GST Enactments and Rules cannot be countenanced in absence of an express bar under the provisions of the respective GST Enactments and the Rules made thereunder. In fact, there can be no bar under the scheme of the respective GST Enactments. 18.Merely because the discrepancies pointed in the intimation in ASMT 10 dated 22.08.2025 has been explained by Petitioner vide Reply dated 19.09.2025 ipso facto would not bar for issuance of a Show Cause Notice in FO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he above conclusion was in the light of the facts of the case as captured in Paragraph No.22. There a Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.1984 was issued for the period July, 1973 to February, 1983 was by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Kharda Division, Calcutta. A similar Show Cause Notice was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi dated 01.10.1986 for the period September, 1981 to February, 1983. 26.For the period September 1981 to February, 1983, the Commissioner of Central Excise passed the order dated 27.03.1991 and directed the Assistant Commissioner to determine the assessable values taking into consideration the materials contained in the said Show Cause Notice. These Show Cause Notices were finally adjudicated by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Kharda Division, Calcutta on 11.01.1996 for the entire period July, 1973 to February, 1983. 27.The effect of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi was that the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Kharta Division, Calcutta alone had the jurisdiction to finally adjudicate and determine the assessable value of the goods cleared from the assessee's factory for the entire period an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ters. This view is to be accepted and followed. 34.Further, in the width of tax laws, principles of estoppel or res-redicata does not strictly apply. While dealing with the applicability of provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Bombay High Court in H.A.Shah and Co. Vs. CIT., (1956) 30 ITR 618 (Bom) held as follows:- "24. Therefore in our opinion an earlier decision on the same question cannot be reopened if that decision is not arbitrary or perverse, if it had been arrived at after due inquiry, if no fresh facts are placed before the Tribunal giving the later decision and if the Tribunal giving the earlier decision has taken into consideration all material evidence... " 35.Only bar under the law is the issuance of a Show Cause Notice against where an Assessment Order is sought to be revised by a subsequent incumbent as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 2010 (2) SCC 723; [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) rendered in the context of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 36.The decision of this Court rendered on 16.07.2024 in W.P.No.15307 of 2024 [Mandarina Apartment Owners Welfare Association (MAOWA) Vs. Commercial Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uing the ASMT-10 notice, in spite of noticing discrepancies after selecting and scrutinizing returns, would be that it vitiates the scrutiny process, including the discrepancies noticed thereby and the quantification, if any, done in course thereof. As regards adjudication, the limited impact would be that the scrutiny under Section 61 cannot be relied upon for adjudication." 38.Therefore, the challenge to the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 which preceded an Intimation in FORM GST ASMT 10 dated 22.08.2025 cannot be countenanced in the light of the above discussions. 39.That apart, there is also no bar for issuance of multiple Show Cause Notices to an assessee for the same tax period, if the Show Cause proceedings are initiated on different and separate issues. 40.That apart, neither the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 nor the General Principles under the Code are applicable to the proceedings initiated under the respective GST Enactments. 41.Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are referred to which reads as under:- Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 11 of the Code of Civil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter in the eye of law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it, is deemed to have been constructively in issue and therefore, is taken as decided. 45.In Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur., 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC), the Court held that a specific inclusion of a condonation period within the special law viz., the Central Excise Act, 1944 therein indicated a clear legislative intent to exclude the general and potentially unlimited condonation power available under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This decision relied on by the various High Courts in several cases to hold that the GST Enactments is a self contained code. 46. The underlying principle in Order II Rule 2 and Sections 10, 11 and 12 in Part I of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 which dealt with the principle for a suit to include whole claim and principle of res-judicata does not apply, as a similar proceeding is conspicuously absent under the scheme of the respective GST Enactments. 47.Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:- "Order II Rule 2 - 2.S....