TRT-2026-100

M/S. V.R.S. TRADERS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (STATE TAXES) POONAMALLEE ASSESSMENT CIRCLE VARADHARAJAPURAM, CHENNAI

Date:-2022-02-10

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - If the revenue wants to initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the Act, has to serve a notice to pay the amount of tax along with interest payable under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to 15% of such tax on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment.Therefore, what has been proposed by the revenue would be intimated by way of notice under Sub Section 5 of Section 74 of the Act initially to the assessee/dealer, who on receipt of the same may or may not accept and once he accepted there would be a conclusion. However, if he does not accept the proposal sent by the Revenue under Section 74(5) of the Act, the next course of action to be followed is to issue a notice under Section 74(1) of the Act. Therefore a Section 74(1) notice is an independent notice to be issued in DRC-01, whereas the notice under Section 74(5) was to be issued in DRC- 01A. Herein the case in hand, admittedly DRC-01A was issued, thereafter straightaway the respondent revenue proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order.The DRC-01 notice under Section 74(1) of the Act, which is also mandatory to be issued before passing the impugned order of assessment has not been issued in this case. In the absence of any such notice, the proceedings, which is culminated in the order of assessment, which is impugned herein, is, no doubt, vitiated.
TRT-2026-101

M/S. SHRI TYRES VERSUS STATE TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

Date:-2021-09-21

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The requirements of issue of  FORM GST DRC-01 and  FORM GST DRC-01A have been statutorily ingrained in the rules made under the CG&ST Act i.e., Rule 142 of the CG&ST Rules, 2017.A careful perusal of Section 73 of the CG&ST Act in conjunction with Rule 142 makes it clear that non adherence to Rule 142 had caused prejudice to the writ petitioner qua impugned order and therefore it is a rule which necessarily needs to be adhered to, if prejudice is to be eliminated in the case on hand. In other words, it is not a mere procedural requirement but on the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes clear that it tantamount to trampling the rights of writ petitioner.The impugned order is set aside, solely on the ground of non-adherence to Rule 142 of the CG&ST Rules, 2017 and all other procedural requirements.
TRT-2026-102

M/S. NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE SUPERINTENDENT (AUDIT), THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER

Date:-2022-05-18

In:-service tax

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - By master circular No.1053/02/2017 dated 10.03.2017, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, it is mandatory to issue a pre-show cause notice for consultation, prior to issue of a show cause notice, in cases involving demands of duty above Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees fifty lakhs only).A perusal of the above extracted portions of the circular clearly indicates that the pre-show cause notice consultation is made mandatory from 21.12.2015 onwards, which is regarded as an important step towards trade facilitation and promoting voluntary compliance and also to reduce the necessity of issuing show cause notices.The contention of the respondents, that the requirement of consultation contemplated therein is not binding upon Department as it is not a statutoryrequirement, cannot be countenanced. A circular issued by the department is binding upon the department and its officers.The issuance of Ext.P7 show cause notice without following the mandatory requirement of pre-show cause consultation is arbitrary and against the circulars.  Therefore, I set aside Ext.P7 show cause notice.   
TRT-2026-103

GULATI ENTERPRISES VERSUS CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS & ORS.

Date:-2022-05-18

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - We may also note that with effect from 15.10.2020 i.e., after the impugned show cause notice was issued, Rule 142(1A) has undergone a change, inasmuch as the word ‘shall’ has been replaced with ‘may’. As to what would be the impact of the amendment need not be considered by us in this case, as admittedly the show cause notice was issued prior to 15.10.2020 i.e., on 21.05.2020.Therefore, having regard to the position which obtained prior to 15.10.2020, we would have to hold that pre-show cause notice consultation was mandatory under the unamended Rule 142 (1A).A voluntary statement cannot substitute a statutory notice, which is contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the 2017 Rules.
TRT-2026-104

EASTERN ASSOCIATES CONTRACTS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Date:-2022-04-26

In:-excise

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - This is precisely the reason the Central Board in its master circular dated 10th March, 2017 has directed that the authority, who has issued the pre-consultation notice, should be the authority, who shall issue the show cause notice and adjudicate the same in cases where pre-consultation does not resolve the dispute.we find that the process of pre-consultation appears to have not been a statutory procedure but a procedure carved out by the Central Board with a view to promote compliance and to reduce the necessity for issuing the show cause notice. The net result is thus if the Central Board has evolved a procedure to balance the interest of the assessee as well as the revenue, such procedure should be given due regard.This, in our view, is incorrect as when the department has evolved a procedure, such procedure should be a meaningful procedure. At least a brief discussion is required to be made as the appellant was invited to participate in the pre-consultation before issuance of the show cause notice with a view towards trade facilitation and promoting voluntary compliance and to reduce the necessity of issuing the show cause notice in terms of the instruction issued by the Board dated 13th October, 2016.Thus, for the above reason, we are of the view that the show cause notice dated 14th October, 2016 cannot be interfered with.
TRT-2026-105

M/S OMAXE NEW CHANDIGARH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S OMAXE CHANDIGARH EXTENSION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.) & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Date:-2022-04-05

In:-service tax

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held -  We are of the view that “voluntary statements” recorded before the Senior Intelligence Officer cannot constitute pre-show cause notice consultation as envisaged in the paragraph 5 of the 2017 Master CircularA voluntary statement is at best a one-way dialogue made before an authority which does not take a decision as whether or not next steps in the matter are required to be taken. Therefore, it cannot be said that voluntary statements made by the officials of the petitioners before the Senior Intelligence Officer would constitute a pre-show cause notice consultation. The contesting respondents will serve an appropriate communication on the petitioner indicating therein the date, time and venue at which they intend to convene a meeting for holding pre-show cause notice consultation.
TRT-2026-106

BACK OFFICE IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Date:-2022-04-05

In:-service tax

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - We are of the view that the contesting respondents were mandatorily required to have a pre-show cause notice consultation with the petitioner-company and that having not being done in the instant matter, the proceedings initiated by the contesting respondents via the impugned show cause notice are non-est in law.Thus, having regard to the foregoing, the matter is remanded to the contesting respondents with the following directions:The contesting respondents will serve an appropriate communication on the petitioner-company indicating therein, the date, time and venue at which they intend to convene a meeting for holding the pre-show cause notice consultation. The concerned officer will accord a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner-company. The concerned officer would allow the authorized representative of the petitioner-company to make submissions on the merits of the matter including the aspect concerning jurisdiction. The concerned officer will, after hearing the authorized representative of the petitioner-company, pass an order as to whether or not it is a fit case for continuing with the proceedings in accordance with the mandate of the law. If the concerned officer concludes that it is a fit case in which proceedings should continue against the petitioner-company, then, he/she would decide as to whether or not the impugned show cause notice should be revived or a fresh show cause notice should be issued.
TRT-2026-107

M/S. NOVEL SECURITY SERVICES VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE BENGALURU

Date:-2021-06-30

In:-service tax

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- no

Held - In the present case, it is seen that every attempt made by the respondent to secure information/document from the appeal were stonewalled by the appellant. Though the show cause notice issued by the respondent which was impugned before the learned Single Judge was not preventive in nature but yet an offence report was registered against the appellant. If the appellant desired to seek the benefit of the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017, he is expected to comply with the summons issued by the respondent seeking explanation/documents that were summoned by the respondent. The benefit of the Master Circular cannot be a one-way traffic and the appellant cannot milch the Master Circular to his advantage.In that view of the matter, the appellant was not entitled to pre-show cause notice as contemplated under Master Circular dated 10.03.2017. Nonetheless, learned Single Judge directed the respondent to keep the impugned show cause notice in abeyance and grant an opportunity to the appellant being heard in terms of the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017 and also reserved liberty to the respondent to revive the show cause notice if the appellant was not able to establish that he had deposited the tax recovered from his service recipients. Since the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is thoroughly balanced, there is no need to interfere with the same.
TRT-2026-108

M/S. KRIDAY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Date:-2021-07-06

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- no

Held - The purpose of paragraph 5.0 of the Master Circular is only that there should be “trade facilitation” and “voluntary compliance” in order to reduce the necessity of issuing a SCN. At the stage where numerous summons were issued to the Petitioner and to its Director, the Department had not yet the issues or the demand to be raised in the SCN. In effect what appears to have transpired pursuant to the summons issued was a ‘consultation’ where the documents produced by the Petitioner/employees of the Petitioner were examined and questions were posed to the notices to explain many aspects of such documents.In the considered view of the Court, the requirement of there having to be a ‘consultation’ in terms of paragraph 5.0 of the Master Circular stands satisfied in the present case.The Court is therefore not inclined to interfere at the present stage of the SCN. 
TRT-2026-109

DHARAMSHIL AGENCIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

Date:-2021-07-23

In:-service tax

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The Board had made issuance of pre show- cause notice consultation mandatory for the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner prior to the issuance of show-cause notice in cases involving the demands of duty above ₹ 50 lac and that such consultation was to be done by the adjudicating authority with the assessee as an important step towards the trade facilitation and for promoting necessary compliance, as also to reduce the necessity of issuing show-cause notice.The said notice is sought to be set aside on the ground that adequate opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners for consultation prior to the issuance of the said notice.Before parting the Court is constrained to observe that such an action on the part of the respondent No.2 in issuing the illusory pre show- cause notice for consultation only two hours before the hearing is not only arbitrary, but is in utter disregard and in contravention of the very object and purpose of the circular which mandated such consultation with the assessee as an important step towards trade facilitation, for promoting voluntary compliance and for reducing necessity of issuing show-cause notice. The action of the respondent authority in not taking timely action after the audit report and in issuing the impugned notice in contravention of the mandatory instructions given by the Board, therefore, is required to be seriously viewed.
TRT-2026-110

AGROMETAL VENDIBLES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Date:-2022-04-07

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held – While issuing an intimation, the proper officer in the notice could not have said that failure on the part of the noticee may entail the consequence of recovery of the entire amount with penalty and interest. In the intimation, the dealer should be informed that if he fails to make the payment, the next step in the process will be issue of a show cause notice. Once there is a show cause notice in the Form GST DRC – 01 in accordance with Rule 142(1)(a) of the Rules to be read with sub-section (1) of Section 74, the same would ultimately lead to regular assessment proceedings with final assessment order.The intimation under sub-section (5) has to be strictly in Form GST DRC – 01A. It is not a show cause notice. In the intimation, the dealer should be informed that if he fails to make the payment, the next step in the process will be issue of a show cause notice under sub-section (1) of Section 74 in accordance with the Form GST DRC – 01.If the department deems fit to issue any intimation of tax ascertained as being payable under sub-section (5) of Section 74 in accordance with the Rule 142(1A) of the Rules, it shall issue notice in the Form GST DRC – 01A. In such a notice of intimation, the proper officer shall not threaten the dealer that if he would fail to comply with the intimation, the department shall proceed to recover the tax. The proper officer should inform the dealer that if he would pay the tax, well and good, otherwise the department shall proceed to issue a show cause notice under sub-section (1) of Section 74 in accordance with Rule 142(1)(a) of the Rules, 2017 in Form GST DRC – 01 and carry out regular assessment proceedings.
TRT-2026-121

M/S BLA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, STATE TAXES DEPARTMENT, RANCHI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, GODDA

Date:-2022-03-02

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - A perusal of the impugned show-cause notice issued under section 73 of the Act shows that it completely lacks in fulfilling the ingredients of proper show cause notice under section 73 of the Act. It does not indicate as to the contravention committed by the petitioner. It has been issued in a format without striking off the irrelevant particulars.  We are inclined to quash the impugned show cause notice issued under section 73 of the JGST Act and Summary of the Show Cause Notice issued in Form GST DRC-01. Since the breach relates to violation of principles of natural justice and mandatory procedure prescribed in law, as per the principles laid by the Apex Court in the case of Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Versus State of Bihar & others reported in [2021 SCC OnLine SC 801, para-24 and 25], as also in the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others (supra) para-11, we are of the view that the writ petition is maintainable.  
TRT-2026-123

M/S. NKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED. VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, RANCHI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, GODDA

Date:-2021-10-06

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - A summary of show-cause notice as issued in Form GST DRC-01 in terms of Rule 142(1) cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show-cause notice. In absence of clear charges which the person so alleged is required to answer, the noticee is bound to be denied proper opportunity to defend itself. This would entail violation of principles of natural justice which is a well-recognized exception for invocation of writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy. A bare perusal of the impugned show-case notice creates a clear impression that it is a notice issued in a format without even striking out any irrelevant portions and without stating the contraventions committed by the petitioner i.e. whether its actuated by reason of fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts in order to evade tax. In order to proceed under the provisions of Section 74 of the Act, the specific ingredients enumerated thereunder have to be clearly asserted in the notice so that the noticee has an opportunity to explain and defend himself. It is also true that acts of fraud or suppression are to be specifically pleaded so that it is clear and explicit to the noticee to reply thereto effectively. Proceedings under Section 74 of the Act have to be preceded by a proper show-cause notice.
TRT-2026-124

M/S NKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, DHURWA, RANCHI, THE STATE TAX OFFICER HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GODDA, DIST. GODDA

Date:-2022-02-09

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held – We find that the show cause notice is completely silent on the violation or contravention alleged to have been done by the petitioner regarding which he has to defend himself. The summary of show cause notice at annexure-2 though cannot be a substitute to a show cause notice, also fails to describe the necessary facts which could give an inkling as to the contravention done by the petitioner.  As noted herein above, the brief facts of the case do not disclose as to which work contract, services were completed or partly completed by the petitioner regarding which he had not reflected his liability in the filed return as per GSTR-3B for the period in question. It needs no reiteration that a summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 could not substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice. At the same time, if a show cause notice does not specify the grounds for proceeding against a person no amount of tax, interest or penalty can be imposed in excess of the amount specified in the notice or on grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice as per section 75(7) of the JGST Act  
TRT-2026-125

M/S. SHRI TYRES VERSUS STATE TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

Date:-2021-09-21

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The requirements of issue of FORM GST DRC-01 and FORM GST DRC-01A have been statutorily ingrained in the rules made under the CG&ST Act i.e., Rule 142 of the CG&ST Rules, 2017. A careful perusal of Section 73 of the CG&ST Act in conjunction with Rule 142 makes it clear that non adherence to Rule 142 had caused prejudice to the writ petitioner qua impugned order and therefore it is a rule which necessarily needs to be adhered to, if prejudice is to be eliminated in the case on hand. In other words, it is not a mere procedural requirement but on the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes clear that it tantamount to trampling the rights of writ petitioner.The impugned order is set aside, solely on the ground of non-adherence to Rule 142 of the CG&ST Rules, 2017 and all other procedural requirements.
TRT-2026-126

M/S. UNITY INFRAPROJECTS LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, RANCHI, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, URBAN CIRCLE, DHANBAD

Date:-2022-07-07

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held that - It is evident that in terms of Sections 70(4) & (5) in case an adverse order is to be passed against the assessee, the assessee is to be granted three opportunities to furnish reply, if the time is sought for. In the absence of proper show cause notice for furnishing reply, petitioner was prevented from taking his defence and submitting a proper reply to the show-cause notice. The adjudication order has been passed straightaway without following due procedure prescribed under Section 73 read with section 75(4) & (5) of the JGST Act. The aforesaid infirmities have vitiated the adjudication proceeding.  We are thus of the considered view that the impugned show cause notice as contained in Annexure-1 does not fulfill the ingredients of a proper show cause notice and amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The challenge is entertainable in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court on the specified grounds as clearly held by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vrs. State of Bihar & others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 801, para 24 and 25. Accordingly, the impugned notice at annexure-1 and the summary of show cause notice at annexure-2 in Form GST DRC-01 is quashed.  The matter is remanded to the State Tax Officer, Dhanbad to initiate a fresh proceeding in accordance with law after issuance of proper show cause notice under Section 73(1) of JGST Act - writ petition disposed off.
TRT-2026-127

M/S JAI JAWAN KASTHA BHANDAR, M/S PRITI ENTERPRISES, M/S NISHA ENTERPRISES, M/S MAHAVEER STEEL INDUSTRIES VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND.

Date:-2022-06-21

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - In the absence of a proper show-cause notice the petitioners herein have been denied proper opportunity to defend themselves of the charges. The requirement of affording opportunity of hearing as contemplated in Section 75(4) of the JGST Act has also been denied. Section 75(5) provides that in case sufficient show-cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, the proper officer shall grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings. The impugned show-cause notice, the adjudication orders and the summary of the order/demand notice in DRC-07 in the case of the individual petitioners cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and on facts. They are accordingly set aside. The respondents State Tax authorities are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a proper show-cause notice in respect of the individual writ petitioners relating to the relevant tax periods and take a decision thereupon in accordance with law. 
TRT-2026-130

Roushan Kumar Chouhan Vs Commissioner of State Tax, State of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax, Ranchi & Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Godda and Dumka, G

Date:-2022-08-03

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Notices under section 73(1) of the Act of 2017 at Annexure-1 of the respective writ petition is in the standard format and neither any particulars have been struck off, nor specific contravention has been indicated to enable the petitioner to furnish a proper reply to defend itself. The show-cause notices can therefore, be termed as vague. This Court has, in the case of M/s NKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED categorically held that summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice under section 73(1) of the Act of 2017. It seems that the authorities have, after issuance of show-cause notice dated 28.08.2020 and Summary of show cause notices contained in GST DRC-01 of the same date, proceeded to issue Summary of the Order dated 12.12.2020  Taking into account all these facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned show-cause notices and Summary of the Show Cause Notice dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure-1 and 2) and Summary of Orders contained in Form GST DRC-07 dated 12.12.2020 are quashed.   
TRT-2026-132

M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer,

Date:-2022-06-20

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no show cause notice as envisaged in Section 73 or 74 of the TNGST/CGST Act has been issued before passing the order, there is unfairness, unreasonableness in the action of the respondent. It is seen that after issuance of notice in Form DRC-01A, dated 06.12.2021, the respondent has issued Form GST DRC-01A. Thereafter, if the petitioner has got any objection and not paid tax as ascertained, a show cause notice has to be issued under Section 74(1) of the TNGST Act and after receiving objections, giving personal hearing, the assessment order ought to have been finalised. In this case, procedure not followed.  The respondent is directed to issue notice after following the procedures prescribed under the TNGST Act and issue show cause notice and after giving an opportunity to file their objections, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.
TRT-2026-134

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs Narendra Kumar Narayan vs Md. Minhaj Alam Vs Commissioner of State Tax, State of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax, Ranchi 2. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Jharkha

Date:-2022-07-11

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Notices under section 73(1) of the Act of 2017 at Annexure-2 in the respective writ petitions are in the standard format and neither any particulars have been struck off, nor specific contravention have been indicated to enable the petitioners to furnish a proper reply to defend themselves. The show-cause notices can therefore, be termed as vague.  This Court has, in the case of M/s NKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED categorically held that summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice under section 73(1) of the Act of 2017. It seems that the authorities have, after issuance of show-cause notices dated 20.08.2020, 27.008.2020 and 28.08.2020 and Summary of show cause notices contained in GST DRC-01 of the same date, proceeded to issue Summary of the Order dated 12.12.2020 and 14.12.2020.  Taking into account all these facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned show-cause notices and Summary of the Show Cause Notices dated 20.08.2020, 27.08.2020 and 28.08.2020 and Summary of Orders contained in Form GST DRC-07 dated 12.12.2020 and 14.12.2020 are quashed. 
TRT-2026-135

M/s. Juhi Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Commissioner of State Taxes, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (Admin), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, East

Date:-2022-06-27

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - Under Section 67 of the JGST Act two summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 were issued, one for the period from 01.07.2017 to 13.8.2018 and another for the period from April, 2018 to 31.8.2018 under Section 74(1) of the JGST Act. It further transpires that the petitioner submitted a concise reply for both the DRC-01 vide its letter dated 11.10.2018 and finally two separate orders, both dated 25.2.2019, were passed. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed rectification application for both the period and fresh rectified orders were passed in respect of both these tax periods. Now the law is no more res-integra, inasmuch as, Rule 142(1)(a) of the JGST Rules provides that the summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 should be issued “along with” the show cause notice under Section 74(1). The word “along with” clearly indicates that in a given case show cause notice as well as summary thereof both have to be issued. As per Rule 142(1)(a) of the JGST Rules, the summary of show cause notice has to be issued electronically to keep track of the proceeding initiated against the registered persona whereas a show cause notice need not necessarily be issued electronically. As we are of the considered view that the impugned show cause notice in both the cases does not fulfill the ingredients of a proper show cause notice and thus amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, the challenge is maintainable in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the summary of show-cause notices dated 14.09.2018 issued in Form GS T DRC-01 (in both cases), the orders dated 25.02.2019 issued under section 74(9) of JGST Act (in both cases) and also the final orders dated 3.3.2021 passed after rectification at Annexure-11 (in both cases), are hereby quashed and set aside.  
TRT-2026-144

M/s. Om Prakash Store, a Partnership Firm. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Commissioner, State Tax Department having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-

Date:-2022-08-18

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The specific case of the petitioner is that after issuance of GST DRC-01 on 16.05.2019, the petitioner was not aware of any order. It was only when his account was attached; petitioner’s-bank informed him about the notice under Section 79 (1) (c) of the Act. Even after going through the entire order sheet it clearly transpires that on 16.05.2019 there was an order for issuance of DRC-01 but after that there was no mention of issuance of DRC-07; rather all of a sudden, 08.09.2021, there was a direction to issue DRC-13. This clearly goes to show that there is serious discrepancy and incongruity in the assessment proceedings, inasmuch as, there is no whisper of issuing DRC-07. Thus, it clearly transpires that a proper show cause notice under Section 73 (1) of the JGST Act and proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before the adjudication order was passed covering the tax period from July, 2017 to March, 2018 [W.P.(T) No. 1526 of 2022)] and April 2018 to June, 2018 [W.P.(T) No. 1527 of 2022)] It clearly transpires that the statutory requirements as enshrined under Section 73 and 75 of the JGST Act has not been followed and as a matter of fact principles of natural justice has also not been followed and thus, both these writ applications are maintainable. We hold that the impugned adjudication order in both these writ application are not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of non-compliance of statutory provisions of the JGST Act and for noncompliance of principle of natural justice.
TRT-2026-686

M/S. B.A.M.S.M. CONSTRUCTIONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM VERSUS THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE UNION OF INDIA

Date:-2022-11-25

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- no

Held - In the instant case, as seen from the record, authorization to inspect and search in Form GST INS01 is dated 20.11.2019, and the business premises was searched on 27.11.2019 by the first Respondent. Notice for production of records was issued on 27.11.2019 and the same were submitted by the Petitioner on 21.01.2020.From the above, it is clear that, the entire process of issuing authorization, submission of documents and books of accounts etc., were prior to the amendment of Rule 1A i.e., 15.10.2020, meaning thereby, that the Proper Officer “shall”, before service of notice under Sub-section 1 of Section 73 or 74, indicate the details of tax, interest and penalty in Form GST DRC-01A.As seen from the reference column, in the Order impugned, dated 05.05.2022, GST DRC-01A dated 05.10.2021, was issued, to which the taxable person sought 30 days time to file objections vide letter, dated 14.10.2021. On 05.11.2021, a reply came to be submitted by the taxable person in Part-B and ultimately a notice in FORM GST DRC- 01 was issued on 27.01.2022, followed by a notice of personal hearing on 02.03.2022, to which a reply was received in Form GST DRC-06 on 14.03.2022. After following the other mandatory requirements, the impugned Order came to be passed on 05.05.2022. Ergo, it is very much clear that, the procedure, as required under the Act, namely, issuance of Form GST DRC-01A, followed by a reply in Form GST DRC- 06, as contemplated under the Act, have been followed.
TRT-2026-849

M/S SKYLINE AUTOMATION INDUSTRIES VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Date:-2023-01-02

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - in our opinion, present writ petition deserves to be allowed, as admittedly for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, which provided for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer. Any subsequent reminder will not cure inherent defect in proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Similar view has been expressed by the Delhi High Court in Gulati Enterprises' case (supra) wherein also in identical facts pertaining to a case prior to the amendment of Rule 142(1A) of the Rules with effect from October 15, 2020, the impugned show cause notice was set aside and the matter was remitted back to authority concerned to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. In the case in hand, the only difference being that subsequent thereto an order has also been passed on November 10, 2022, the same will not make any difference. As the initiation of proceedings itself are bad, the order passed consequent thereto will also fall.For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated November 10, 2022 is quashed. However, with liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.
TRT-2026-892

M/S. SOLEX ENERGY LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, RANCHI. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, RANCHI WEST CIRCLE

Date:-2023-01-31

In:-GST

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - In response to the said application, information under RTI through letter dated 23rd September 2021 was received wherein he was provided the copy of Form GST DRC-01 for F.Y. 2017-18 dated 03.12.2018, Form GST DRC-02 for F.Y. 2017-18 dated 03.12.2018, Form GST DRC-07 dated 21.01.2019 and Form GST RFD-06 dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure-9). Petitioner complains that he was never in receipt of the summary notice in Form GST DRC-01 and summary of statement in Form GST DRC-02, either electronically or physically at any time before. None of the documents i.e. summary notice in Form GST DRC-01, summary of statement in Form GST DRC-02, summary order in Form GST DRC-07 were signed by any authority nor any detailed order was issued. Therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court.Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the pleadings on record and the documents enclosed thereto, we are of the considered opinion that the assessment proceedings suffer from serious procedural errors in absence of a proper show-cause notice. The summary of order issued in Form GST DRC-07 dated 21st January 2019 does not precede with a proper adjudication order either. As such, considering the ratio rendered by this Court in the case of M/s Nkas Services Private Limited (supra) and the fact that there are serious discrepancies in the proceedings, the impugned summary of order contained in Form GST DRC-07 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority respondent no.3 to proceed in accordance with law afresh after issuing a proper show cause notice. 
TRT-2026-1183

M/s Shree Ram Agrotech Vs The State of Jharkhand, The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, The State Tax Officer, The Commercial Tax Officer, The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeal)

Date:-2023-06-15

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - It is crystal clear that no show cause notice in terms of Section 73 (1) of the JGST Act, 2017 has been served by the Respondents upon the Petitioner towards imposition of the tax, interest and penalty under the JGST Act amounting to Rs. 8,04,134/- for the concerned period. The reliance of the Respondents on the alleged Summary show cause in Form GST DRC-01, dated 20.12.2018, is also of not much avail. The contents of the said summary show cause in Form GST DRC-01, dated 20.12.2018, does not provide the specific alleged violations by the Petitioner and also does not specifically give the opportunity to the Petitioner to rebut the allegations of the Respondent Department. Thus, in essence, the said Form GST DRC-01 dated 20.12.2018, cannot be considered as an opportunity provided by the Respondent to the Petitioner before passing of the Impugned Summary Adjudication order in Form GST DRC – 07. Furthermore, admittedly; no such adjudication order is available on the records of the Respondents and now it is well settled that the Form DRC-07, alone and in the absence of issuance of detailed adjudication order, can make an Assessee liable to pay any tax, interest or penalty. Accordingly, we hold that when no detailed adjudication order, as required under Section 73 (9) of JGST Act, 2017, has been passed or issued to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is not liable to pay any tax, interest or penalty only on the basis of the said Form DRC-07. In view of the discussions made herein above, the Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 19.01.2019 bearing reference number ZA200119000232J, issued by the Respondent No.4 whereby tax, interest and penalty under the JGST Act amounting to Rs. 8,04,134/- has been imposed on the Petitioner, is hereby, quashed and set aside.
TRT-2026-1434

Baba Agriculture Export Vs Union of India & Ors.

Date:-2025-10-08

In:-gst

Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes

Held - The petitioner, who was served with a copy of the Order-in-Original No.70/2024-25-GST, dated 25.02.2025, under Section 73 of the CGST Act, has challenged the said order on the ground that it has been passed in contravention of Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 inasmuch as no prior show-cause notice was served on the petitioner. In view of the consistent stand taken by this Court that non-issuance of notice under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, would vitiate the entire process of assessment, it would be appropriate to follow the consistent stand. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the Order-in-original No.70/2024-25-GST, dated 25.02.2025 and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to complete the assessment in accordance with law after issuance of necessary notice. The period from the date of the impugned order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the  purposes of limitation.