M/s Rameshwar Prasad Rajendra Prasad v. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise and Another

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 74

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The challenge laid in this writ petition is to the show cause notice dated 14.7.2023 issued by the respondent No. 2 for the financial year 2018-19 as also to the entire proceedings undertaken by the respondents under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 pursuant to the information forwarded by the Additional Director General, DDGI, Zonal Unit, Lucknow consequent to an inquiry initiated by the said authority in respect of the issuance of invoices from the non existing firms without actual supply of goods and wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit by these firms. Reported disposition:
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:213012-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1274 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Rameshwar Prasad Rajendra Prasad Respondent :- Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Mahajan Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The challenge laid in this writ petition is to the show cause notice dated 14.7.2023 issued by the respondent No. 2 for the financial year 2018-19 as also to the entire proceedings undertaken by the respondents under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 pursuant to the information forwarded by the Additional Director General, DDGI, Zonal Unit, Lucknow consequent to an inquiry initiated by the said authority in respect of the issuance of invoices from the non existing firms without actual supply of goods and wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit by these firms.

3. The challenge laid to the impugned show cause notice dated 14.7.2023 and the proceedings initiated consequent thereto, is on the ground that the mandatory provision of Rule 142 (1) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017 have not been followed inasmuch as, the notice is not in the prescribed format FORM GST DRC-01 as provided under the aforesaid rule and also violates the requirement of issuing the summary in FORM GST DRC-02 and details of tax interest and penalty as ascertained in FORM GST DRC-01A. 4. It is further contended that the petitioner has been denied valuable right of cross examination on the basis of which adverse information has been received against the petitioner.

It is contended that the issuance of the impugned show cause notice being defective, the notice is wholly without jurisdiction and entire proceedings initiated consequent thereto is void ab initio, non-est and liable to be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Shri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, in opposition to the writ petition, submits that the challenge laid by the petitioner is to a mere show cause notice, which has been issued on collecting certain adverse information against the petitioner in respect of utilization of Input Tax Credit without actual supply of goods by fictitious firms. The petitioner in response to the notice may file objections, which may be considered by the Authority concerned. He submits that no interference is warranted by this Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and have perused the record. 7. Considering the entire controversy, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by requiring the petitioner to file objections to the show cause notice within a period of two weeks from today before the respondent No. 2 along with certified copy of the order of this Court. On filing of the objections within the time allowed, it is expected that the respondent No. 2 would proceed to consider the objections after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law within the next 15 days. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) (Pritinker Diwaker, CJ)

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/s Rameshwar Prasad Rajendra Prasad v. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise and Another concerns issue and context: the challenge laid in this writ petition is to the show cause notice dated 14.7.2023 issued by the respondent no. 2 for the financial year 2018-19 as also to the entire proceedings undertaken by the respondents under section 74 of the central goods and service tax act, 2017 pursuant to the information forwarded by the additional director general, ddgi, zonal unit, lucknow consequent to an inquiry initiated by the said authority in respect of the issuance of invoices from the non existing firms without actual supply of goods and wrongful availment and utilization of input tax credit by these firms. reported disposition: The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. - 1274 of 2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The challenge laid in this writ petition is to the show cause notice dated 14.7.2023 issued by the respondent No. 2 for the financial year 2018-19 as also to the entire proceedings undertaken by the respondents under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 pursuant to the information forwarded by the Additional Director General, DDGI, Zonal Unit, Lucknow consequent to an inquiry initiated by the said authority in respect of the issuance of invoices from the non existing firms without actual supply of goods and wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit by these firms. Reported disposition: Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 74—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 74 and the decision date 2023-11-06; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/s Rameshwar Prasad Rajendra Prasad v. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise and Another, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 1274 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-11-06. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice; Ashutosh Srivastava,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 74. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is Review / appeal / SLP and later treatment: check pending. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/s Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/S Pawan Kumar Jain And Company v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Demand & Adjudication

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Official primary text, exact sanitized mirror · Repository status: Published