There is no jurisdictional error in issuance of the impugned show cause notice. The matter is at the stage of the examination of the Petitioner’s response to the show cause notice. This court is of the view that no interference is called for at this stage.
Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Transitional Credit – The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned SCN dated 23.04.2019. The Petitioner filed its revised ST-3 return on 26.09.2017 raising the ITC from ‘Nil’ to Rs. 4,39,44,304/-. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in respect of the earlier notices issued by the Respondents, no final determination has been made or communicated to the Petitioner. On each occasion, the Petitioner has submitted its replies which have been ignored while issuing impugned show cause notice. The respondent counsel submitted that the replies submitted by the Petitioner from time to time were duly taken note of and considered while issuing the impugned SCN. The court observed that there is no merit in this petition. The Respondents have followed the statutory scheme. The earlier notices were only to make inquiries, and it is only the impugned SCN which is a Substantive Show Cause Notice. The matter is at the stage of the examination of the Petitioner’s response to the show cause notice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.
There is no jurisdictional error in issuance of the impugned show cause notice. The matter is at the stage of the examination of the Petitioner’s response to the show cause notice. This court is of the view that no interference is called for at this stage.
Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Transitional Credit – The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned SCN dated 23.04.2019. The Petitioner filed its revised ST-3 return on 26.09.2017 raising the ITC from ‘Nil’ to Rs. 4,39,44,304/-. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in respect of the earlier notices issued by the Respondents, no final determination has been made or communicated to the Petitioner. On each occasion, the Petitioner has submitted its replies which have been ignored while issuing impugned show cause notice. The respondent counsel submitted that the replies submitted by the Petitioner from time to time were duly taken note of and considered while issuing the impugned SCN. The court observed that there is no merit in this petition. The Respondents have followed the statutory scheme. The earlier notices were only to make inquiries, and it is only the impugned SCN which is a Substantive Show Cause Notice. The matter is at the stage of the examination of the Petitioner’s response to the show cause notice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.