HC Upholds Assessment Order for Non-Response to GST Notices
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 9 May, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Shashi Contractors vs. State of U.P. - [2025] 174 taxmann.com 95 (Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Arun Bhansali, CJ. & Kshitij Shailendra, J.
-
Akhil Agnihotri for the Petitioner.
-
Ankur Agarwal, S.C. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a taxpayer under the CGST Act, was initially issued a notice under Section 61 of the CGST Act after discrepancies were identified in its tax returns following scrutiny. This was followed by a notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, seeking an explanation for the discrepancies in the returns. Despite multiple reminders, the petitioner failed to respond to these notices. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued an assessment order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, creating a demand which included tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner challenged the assessment order before the Allahabad High Court, contending that the order violated Section 75(6) of the CGST Act due to a lack of reasons and Section 75(7) for not specifying the penalty amount.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the assessment order was valid and justified. The Court observed that the petitioner’s failure to respond to the repeated show cause notices meant that the Assessing Officer was not required to anticipate potential defenses but was entitled to base its decision solely on the material available on record. The show cause notice clearly specified the tax, penalty, and interest liabilities, with the penalty described as “as per CGST Act, 2017,” fulfilling the requirements of Section 75(7). The Court further concluded that the assessment order provided sufficient reasoning for the conclusion that the petitioner was liable for the demand. As such, the writ petition was dismissed in favour of the revenue, upholding the levied tax, interest, and penalty.
List of Cases Referred to
- M/s New Manoj Medical Store v. State of U.P. and 2 others Writ Tax No. 979 of 2025 (para 8).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
