Ms Prem Steels vs. Commissioner Of State Tax And Anr
Held
The High Court, without delving into the merits of the SCN or the petitioner's reliance on the G.R. Infra Projects judgment, disposed of the writ petition. The Court observed that the petitioner had sought time to respond to the SCN and the revenue had assured the provision of complete details. Therefore, the Court directed that complete details supporting the allegations in the SCN be furnished to the petitioner within one week from the date of the order. The petitioner was granted a further period of two weeks to submit their reply after receiving the details. Following this, the authorities were permitted to proceed in accordance with the law. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, but the core validity of the SCN was not adjudicated.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Prem Steels, has challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the SCN is vague and lacks specific details regarding the alleged acts of fraud. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of State Tax and another, stated that the petitioner had sought adjournments thrice to file a reply. The revenue also assured the court that supporting details for the allegations would be provided to the petitioner within a week.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, is legally valid and sufficiently detailed, particularly concerning allegations of fraud, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner has been afforded adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations, considering their request for time to submit a reply, as highlighted by the revenue? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that the SCN is vague and does not contain the necessary details to substantiate the allegations of fraud, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s G. R. Infra Projects Limited Ratlam v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. Revenue's Contention: The revenue points out that the petitioner has sought time to file a reply on multiple occasions and undertakes to provide the requisite details within a week.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****
CWP-29054-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.09.2026 M/S PREM STEELS ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND ANR ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab. ***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, CJ (Oral)
The Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to the petitioner under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is assailed by the petitioner by relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s G. R. Infra Projects Limited Ratlam v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Civil Appeal No.11277 of 2026 (Special Leave Petition (C) No.33594 of 2025).
It is submitted that the SCN is vague and does not contain details which allegedly constitute an act of fraud.
Learned counsel for the revenue points out that the petitioner has sought time thrice before the authority to submit a reply in the matter. It is also stated that the details in support of the allegations shall be furnished to the pet
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.