Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTNo Bar In Law In Issuing Two Show Cause Notices Under GST...

No Bar In Law In Issuing Two Show Cause Notices Under GST For Same Period With Different Subject Matter: Allahabad High Court

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Allahabad High Court has held that no bar in law in issuing two show cause notices under GST for the same period with different subject matter.

The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has observed that show cause notices issued to the petitioner reveals that the subject matter of both the notices is totally different from each other and, therefore, apparently there is no bar in law in issuing two show cause notices for the same period with a different/distinct subject matter and, therefore, to that extent, no interference to the show cause notice is made out.

The petitioner/assessee was issued show cause notice by the Assistant Commissioner (AE), CGST, Meerut in relation to the availment of ITC for effecting taxable as well as exempted supply in which no separate record was allegedly maintained by the petitioner. Subsequent, notice has been issued to the petitioner in relation to mis-classifying the product as in exempted goods instead of taxable at the rate of 5%.

The petitioner contended that the department are not justified in issuing two notices for the same period and, therefore, the issuance of subsequent notice deserves to be set aside.

The department contended that the subject matters of both the show cause notices are totally different and independent to each other and there is no bar in law in issuing more than one show cause notice for the same period on different subject matters. In the show cause notice dated 30.07.2024 issued to the petitioner, the fact that issue pertaining to applicability of tax on supply of poultry feed supplements which were cleared by the petitioner as exempted supply, has already been taken up by the DGGI-HQ, New Delhi. Therefore, the aspect was not being taken into consideration, was specifically noticed and in those circumstances, the issuance of notice dated 04.08.2024 cannot be questioned.

The court upheld the show cause notice and held that so far as the plea pertaining to two show cause notices being adjudicated by two different authorities is concerned, the petitioner would be free to approach the said authorities and, in case, petitioner approaches the authorities, the authority would take a view on the subject and examine viability of both the show cause notices being adjudicated by the same authority.

Read More: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand On Corporate Guarantees Raised After 5 Years 

Case Details

Case Title: M/S ALM Industries Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (AE) Central Goods and Services and 2 others

Case No.: Writ Tax No. – 2505 Of 2024

Date: 10.1.2025

Counsel For Petitioner: Aditya Pandey

Counsel For Respondent: Parv Agarwal

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Cash Refund Loses Its Character as Tax or Interest; 10% Pre-Deposit Required for GST Appeal: GSTAT Registry

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Hyderabad Registry has opined that an amount received by a...

Can Disputed ITC Claim Amount to “Fraud or Suppression”? Allahabad HC Stays S. 74 Proceedings Against Samsung Display 

The Allahabad High Court has prima facie questioned the Revenue’s attempt to invoke the...

Bombay High Court Questions 6 Month Limit Under GST Notification for S. 16(5) ITC Benefit

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has raised an important question concerning...

More like this

Cash Refund Loses Its Character as Tax or Interest; 10% Pre-Deposit Required for GST Appeal: GSTAT Registry

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Hyderabad Registry has opined that an amount received by a...

Can Disputed ITC Claim Amount to “Fraud or Suppression”? Allahabad HC Stays S. 74 Proceedings Against Samsung Display 

The Allahabad High Court has prima facie questioned the Revenue’s attempt to invoke the...

Bombay High Court Questions 6 Month Limit Under GST Notification for S. 16(5) ITC Benefit

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has raised an important question concerning...