What is GST Notice.

 Adjudication is adversarial, and Revenue is not willing to backdown from the 'view' canvassed merely because taxpayer has declined to subscribe to it. Revenue will want to exhaust every remedy available in law to 'save the demand'. Justifiably so.

Notice is not a 'question' that must be met with an 'answer'. Notice contains a 'view', alternate to that adopted by taxpayer in self-assessment. Revenue is not unaware of the interpretation adopted by taxpayer, which is invariably, the most advantageous one possible. Revenue is not misinformed about the facts either.

View canvassed (in SCN) needs facts that advance this cause. Facts may be understood but presented in a suitable manner. Facts are not always facts. Facts may be some interpretation about the facts. Facts may be supported by statements-on-oath. Statements may not be limited to facts but contain opinion about the facts.

Taxpayers must not expect notices to go straight to a favourable outcome. Favourable outcome will come but only after adverse outcome in early proceedings is overturned in appeal.

Chances of a favourable outcome in adjudication are (empirically) less than 10%. So, reply (to SCN) cannot be all 'answers'. Reply must test SCN for its plausibility. Chances improve to more than 70% in appeal, if 'findings reached' are guided carefully in proceedings leading up to final appeal on-facts.

Most cases are lost, if not at the stage of pre-notice enquiry, at the stage of 'reply'. Taxpayers enthusiasm (covered in an earlier post) is the culprit. Roadmap must be laid out from adjudication all the way to final appeal. And this requires grasp of 'objectives to achieve' at each stage.

At adjudication, facts-in-issue and relevant law must be firmly established. Interpretation adopted does not matter. If irrelevant facts have been admitted and inapplicable provisions applied, extricating the case out of this hole will be herculean.

At first appeal, failure of adjudication forms the centerpiece, either on facts or on law. Willingness to agree with taxpayer's view suffers at the hands of perspective bias. Bias to 'save the demand'. Give half-a-chance and defects in SCN and failings in OIO will all be ironed out.

Taxpayers demand 'detailed reply' be provided. Case of Patient advising Surgeon. Detailed reply is unwelcome. And if 200 decisions are cited, case of Surgeon hoping to impress Patient. Taxpayers are their own biggest enemy.

Demanding that "credit is an vested right that is indefeasible" is not going to convince the 'creature of the statute'. This demand will not be declined in appeal for failure to agitate in adjudication.

Demand irrelevant facts be eliminated. Demand relevant provisions be applied. Demand findings needed to be reached. Demand proof of admissibility of evidence. Demand competence to issue SCN. Demand answers, don't furnish answers. After all, it's Revenue's case!