Case Details: Varalaxmi Construction Co. vs. Union of India (2025) 35 Centax 127 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
- Ms Deepali Kamble, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ram Ochani a/w. Ms Niyati Mankad & Ms Priyanka Singh, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee challenged the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on the ground that mandatory pre-consultation was not conducted. In terms of Para 5.0 of Master Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX., dated 10-03-2017, pre-consultation with the assessee is required before issuing a demand-based SCN. The petitioner submitted that the revenue authority issued the SCN without any actual pre-consultation and contended that any purported communication for pre-consultation was not received due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner relied upon earlier decisions of the Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court, which emphasised the mandatory nature of pre-consultation. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that pre-consultation under Para 5.0 of Master Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX., dated 10-03-2017 is mandatory. The Court observed that issuance of a SCN without actual pre-consultation contravenes procedural requirements. It concluded that the impugned SCN and the consequent order-in-original were unsustainable and, therefore, set aside both. The Court granted liberty to the jurisdictional officer under CGST to hold the pre-consultation as required under the circular.
List of Cases Cited
- Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner — 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 486 (Del.) — Relied on [Paras 13, 14, 15]
- Jay Mahakali Industrial Service v. Union of India — 2025 (393) E.L.T. 28 (Guj.) = (2025) 29 Centax 353 (Guj.) — Relied on [Paras 12, 15]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX., dated 10-3-2017 [Paras 4, 7, 10, 11, 15]
