TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner questions the above proceedings and the order on the following grounds:- (a) That the pre-show cause notice issued in Form DRC 1A has not been signed by the proper officer/has invalid signature. (b) That the show cause issued under Section 74 of the said Act in Form DRC-01, has been issued without considering the response to the pre show-cause. (c) That the show cause notice issued in Form DRC01 is vague, non-specific, no specific taxable event or essential ingredients to invoke Section 74 of the said Act has been disclosed. (d) The show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the said Act deals with different periods which had been clubbed together, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Court in WPA 11 of 2026, however, later sought to withdraw the same to urge all points in the reply to the show cause. By order dated 17th March, 2026, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while permitting the petitioner to file its response to the show-cause though belatedly, also granted liberty to the proper officer to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. No liberty was however, reserved to approach this Court by bypassing the multi tiered adjudicatory process in the form of statutory remedy. In this backdrop, the matter is considered. 7. I find that the petitioner does not question the order on the ground that the same has not been properly signed by the proper officer or that the detailed show cause was improperly signe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unearthed during investigation, as such the consolidated show-cause was issued. The above aspect has been considered by the proper officer. 9. On the aspect of the petitioner being heard before a different authority than the authority before whom the petitioner had filed his response, I find that it is an admitted position that the authority who heard the petitioner was a proper officer within the meaning of the said Act and it is the same proper office who had passed the order. The petitioner had not only submitted its response but was also heard and was represented by an advocate. Insofar as the contention raised by the petitioner and the order impugned does not take into consideration the objection raised, I find that though prima fa....