Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Swan IT Solutions, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, challenging a show cause notice dated 27.09.2023 issued against it. The record placed before the Court, in the form of Form GST ASMT-10 issued by respondent No. 2, showed that the petitioner had been given a further opportunity to file its reply to the notice by 28.10.2023, i.e., after the date on which the writ petition itself was filed and heard.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition challenging a show cause notice in Form GST ASMT-10 was maintainable when the petitioner still had an unexpired opportunity to file a reply before the assessing authority.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The show cause notice dated 27.09.2023 was under challenge and the petitioner sought interference by the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Form GST ASMT-10 itself showed that the petitioner had been afforded a further opportunity to file its reply by 28.10.2023, and the proceedings had therefore not reached a stage warranting writ interference.

Court Order/Findings

  • A perusal of Form GST ASMT-10 (Annexure P-4) showed that the petitioner had been given another opportunity to file its reply by 28.10.2023.
  • Since the petitioner still had an open opportunity to reply to the show cause notice, the writ petition challenging the notice at that stage was held to be pre-mature and not maintainable, and was accordingly dismissed.

Important Clarification

  • A writ challenge to a GST show cause notice (including Form GST ASMT-10) will generally be dismissed as premature where the recipient still has an unexpired opportunity to file a reply before the assessing authority.
  • Assessees are expected to exhaust the reply/adjudication process at the notice stage before invoking writ jurisdiction against the notice itself.

Sections Involved

  • Form GST ASMT-10, CGST Rules, 2017 — notice for intimating discrepancies in the return after scrutiny, requiring the taxpayer to furnish an explanation.
  • Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India — writ and superintendence jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision favours the Department. The writ petition was dismissed as premature, without any adjudication on the merits of the underlying discrepancy alleged in the show cause notice, leaving the petitioner to respond to the notice through the ordinary process.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
  • Case No.: CWP-24032-2023
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan
  • Decision Date: 20 October 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Dismissed as premature

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.