Case Details: V.E. Comercial Vehicles Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 37 Centax 200 (M.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vijay Kumar Shukla & Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
- S/Shri Manoj Munshi, Senior Advocate a/by Lucky Jain, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Bhuwan Gautam, G.A. & Prasanna Prasad, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee challenged a show cause notice issued for recovery of tax along with interest and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act, contending that the notice lacked the essential ingredients of Section 74, was issued beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 44, and amounted to a repeated notice on the same issue, thereby attracting the principle of res judicata. It was submitted that these defects rendered the show cause notice unsustainable and warranted interference by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that while there is no absolute bar on exercising writ jurisdiction against a show cause notice, such interference is warranted only where the notice is issued without jurisdiction or by an incompetent authority. The Court held that in the present case, the impugned show cause notice was not issued by an incompetent authority and the authority did not lack any inherent jurisdiction under the CGST Act and the Madhya Pradesh GST Act. It was further held that the contentions raised by the petitioner-assessee regarding limitation, applicability of Section 74, and alleged repetition could be effectively addressed before the competent adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition against the show cause notice.
List of Cases Cited
- Abhishek Mundhra v. A.D.G, D.G of Revenue Intelligence — 2015 (318) E.L.T. 245 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Additional Director, DRI v. M. Rathakrishnan — 2017 (354) E.L.T. 483 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Commissioner v. Krishna Wax Pvt. Ltd — 2019 (368) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Enaltec Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — (2024) 24 Centax 124 (M.P.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill — (2012) 2 SCC 108 — Referred [Para 2]
- Indore Christian College v. State of M.P. — W.A. No. 3333 of 2025, decided on 20-11-2025 — Referred [Para 3]
- IVES Drugs (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India — 2015 (327) E.L.T. 26 (M.P.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Jay Kumar Lohani v. Commissioner — 2012 (28) S.T.R. 350 (M.P.) — Referred [Para 3]
- KVS Cargo v. Commissioner — 2016 (342) E.L.T. 24 (Del.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar — 2021 SCC Online SC 801 — Referred [Para 2]
- Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India — 2004 (166) E.L.T. 153 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 3, 5]
- Mount Everest Breweries Ltd. v. Union of India — (2024) 14 Centax 278 (M.P.) = 2024 (83) G.S.T.L. 209 (M.P.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector — 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 2]
- R.K. Modi and Sons v. Union of India — 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 415 (M.P.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.) — Referred [Para 2]
- Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse — 2004 (164) E.L.T. 141 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 5]
- State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. — 2005 (6) SCC 499 — Referred [Para 2]
- State of Punjab v. Shiv Enterprises — (2023) 2 Centax 244 (S.C.) = 2023 (70) G.S.T.L. 113 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Study Metro Edu Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Director — (2025) 34 Centax 284 (M.P.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Tanushree Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2015 (38) S.T.R. 951 (Raj.) — Referred [Para 3]
- Tripti Alcobrew Ltd. v. State of M.P. — W.P. No. 1969 of 2014, decided on 27-10-2015 — Referred [Para 3]
- Union of India v. Coastal Container Transporters Association — 2019 (22) G.S.T.L. 481 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 3]
