Veremax Technologie Services Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 03.05.2024 and the Order-in-Original dated 21.11.2023 issued under Section 73 of the CGST/IGST/SGST Acts for the financial years 2017-18 (July 2017 to March 2018), 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the department issued a single consolidated show cause notice covering multiple tax periods instead of issuing separate notices for each financial year.
Court Decision:
The Court held that under Section 73 of the CGST Act, the limitation period of three years for passing an order is calculated separately from the due date of furnishing the annual return for each financial year. Consequently, actions relating to different financial years must be treated independently.
Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court, the Court held that issuance of a single consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years is contrary to the statutory scheme of the CGST Act.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause notice dated 03.05.2024 issued for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2020-21. The Court clarified that the respondent is at liberty to issue separate show cause notices for each assessment year in accordance with Section 73 of the CGST Act.
Cases Referred by Court:
· Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST, W.P. No.33164 of 2023 (Madras High Court)
· State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350
Other Case Law
Hari Shanker Transport v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow & Anr.
Validity of a GST demand order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 without setting out relevant facts and basis of decision as mandated under Section 75(6) of the Act.
BackgroundThe petitioner, a transport firm, was issued a scrutiny notice under S...
Read MoreSPL Motors (P) Ltd. vs Union of India and Others
Whether Rule 86A CGST Rules permits blocking of ITC in Electronic Credit Ledger beyond available balance (negative blocking).
Facts :The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, challenged the action of the res...
Read MoreRam Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement
Validity of Arrest under Section 19 read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Whether non-supply of the ECIR vitiates the arrest and whether the mandatory requirements of Section 19 were duly complied with by the Enfor
Facts of the Case:-* ED registered an ECIR against Ram Kishor Arora in con...
Read More