GST scrutiny via pre-intimation notices versus direct show-cause proceedings raises procedural fairness against revenue protection.
The legal issue is whether the statutory scrutiny mechanism requiring a pre-intimation notice is a mandatory precondition before initiating adjudication, or permissive so authorities may proceed directly to show-cause proceedings when independent information or prima facie fraud exists. The scrutiny process allows selection of returns, communication of discrepancies and quantified tax or interest where possible, and an opportunity for the taxpayer to explain or rectify; if unsatisfactory, the officer may initiate appropriate action including determination of dues or penalty. Jurisprudence is divided between treating pre-intimation as a mandatory safeguard and treating it as permissive. (AI Summary)