Taxpayer Files Writ without Submitting GST Reply: P&H HC Directs to File Response to SCN in ITC Difference Matter [Read Order]
The High Court declined to examine a GST SCN since the petitioner had not filed a reply, allowing one week to submit the reply and clarified that all objections may be raised before the GST authority.
In a recent case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that since the taxpayer had not filed a reply, it refused to hear a writ against a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) show-cause notice regarding ITC differences.
The Court gave one week to submit the response and said all objections can be raised before the GST authority, which must consider the reply in accordance with law.
The Petitioner, Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice (SCN) dated 28.09.2025, issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 74 of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Section74 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 explained that: Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts.
“Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, or any wilful- misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the notice.”
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
The Petitioner submitted that the SCN dated 28.09.2025 is bereft of complete details of purported allegations of difference in ITC availed in GST returns, was mechanically issued on 28.09.2025 to prevent statutory timelines from lapsing, and failed to provide base values for the alleged differential amount. Thus, SCN dated 28.09.2025 is set aside.
The Counsel for the State, Mamta Singla Talwar, argued that the petitioner had not yet filed a reply to the SCN and that all pleas would be considered if submitted to the authorities. She further submitted that the petitioner was allowed one week to file a reply, despite the original period having expired.
“She further submits, on instructions from Sh. Harit Chaudhry, ETO, Gurugram East, that though period afforded in SCN for filing reply has expired but in case, petitioner submits reply within a period of next one week, same shall be considered in accordance with law.”
On the other hand, the Petitioner’s Counsel, Preetam Singh, agreed to file a reply within the stipulated week, though petitioner should be permitted to raise the issue of all necessary information not being provided to it in the SCN.
The High Court, composed of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Parmod Goyal, heard and reviewed the matter filed by the Petitioner.
After considering the submissions, the High Court found no grounds to continue the proceedings. The Court directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's reply, if submitted within one week, in accordance with law.
The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available pleas in the reply, and the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Thus, the petition was disposed of.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
