GST Notice Challenges Require Factual Review: Allahabad HC Declines to Interfere, Refers Matter to Fresh Adjudication [Read Order]
The petitioner argued that the notice contradicted prior departmental communications and judicial precedent under the Excise regime. The Court held that the dispute involved factual issues requiring evidentiary review.
![GST Notice Challenges Require Factual Review: Allahabad HC Declines to Interfere, Refers Matter to Fresh Adjudication [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/11/11/2104109-gst-notice-factual-review-allahabad-hc-declines-fresh-adjudication-taxscan.webp "GST Notice Challenges Require Factual Review: Allahabad HC Declines to Interfere, Refers Matter to Fresh Adjudication [Read Order]")
The Allahabad High Court has declined to interfere in a writ petition challenging a GST adjudication notice issued under Section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due toa factual review.
The petitioner had challenged the validity of the notice, arguing that it contradicted earlier departmental communications and judicial precedent under the Central Excise regime.
The petitioner, Ashok Auto Sales Limited’s counsel, submitted that the impugned notice was inconsistent with a prior letter issued by the Director General of GST Intelligence.
They further argued that the same commodity had previously been treated differently under the Excise framework, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I v. Bajaj Auto Ltd., (2015).
According to the petitioner, the current notice disregarded settled classification and valuation principles.
Received a GST Notice? Don’t Panic! Click here
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contended that the show cause notice was legally valid and issued within the jurisdiction.
They explained that the petitioner had been granted an opportunity to respond and that the adjudication process was ongoing.
The respondents’ counsel urged the Court to refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction, pointing to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
After hearing both sides, the division bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Indrajeet Shukla held that the challenge raised factual issues requiring evidentiary consideration.
GST Clarity, Direct from the Bare Act! Click here
The Court noted that it would be inappropriate to interfere at this stage, especially when the petitioner had access to a full adjudication process under the CGST framework.
The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and left all issues open for determination by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to contest the proceedings on their own merits.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
