Free Invoice Generator – Luzenta

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework incorporates mechanisms for ensuring compliance and recovering dues when taxpayers fail to discharge their tax liability correctly. Section 73 of the CGST Act plays a crucial role in this context by outlining the process through which the tax authorities can demand recovery of GST that has not been paid, underpaid, erroneously refunded, or wrongly claimed as input tax credit. This provision is specifically crafted for cases that do not involve fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. It generally applies within the limitation period prescribed under law, providing a structured process for addressing routine tax discrepancies.

The importance of Section 73 lies in its balanced approach, which safeguards taxpayer rights while enabling the department to rectify non-compliance. One of the fundamental safeguards incorporated in this section is the mandatory issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) before any demand is finalized. This allows the taxpayer to present their explanation or evidence in response to the allegations, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice.

Self-Assessment and Tax Liability Determination

GST operates largely on the principle of self-assessment, where taxpayers calculate and remit their dues based on their understanding of the tax laws and the nature of their transactions. This decentralized approach aims to reduce the compliance burden and promote ease of doing business. However, differing interpretations between taxpayers and the tax authorities often lead to disputes, resulting in cases of short payment or non-payment of tax.

Such situations demand intervention by the tax department to ensure correct collection of revenue. However, before proceeding to recover dues, it is imperative that the reasons behind the alleged shortfall are examined. This prevents arbitrary imposition of tax demands and ensures that the taxpayer’s right to be heard is respected.

Section 73 provides a complete procedural code that governs how notices are issued, hearings are conducted, and orders are passed for determining liability. This statutory framework ensures that due process is followed, thereby preventing misuse of authority.

Applicability and Scope of Section 73

The provisions of Section 73 apply to cases concerning GST liabilities for the financial years up to 2023-24. With effect from the financial year 2024-25, a new provision—Section 74A—has been introduced to deal with cases involving fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. This separation signifies a more stringent approach towards deliberate tax evasion while preserving Section 73 for regular demand cases.

Section 73 is narrower in scope compared to analogous provisions in earlier indirect tax laws. It addresses four specific situations: non-payment of tax, short payment of tax, erroneous refund, and wrongful availment or utilization of input tax credit. Importantly, it excludes cases with allegations of fraud or deliberate concealment, which are handled under the more severe provisions of Section 74 and now Section 74A.

This focus ensures that the majority of routine tax recovery actions fall under Section 73, making it the default provision for non-fraudulent demand cases within the limitation period.

Mandatory Issuance of Show Cause Notice

One of the cornerstones of Section 73 is the mandatory issuance of a show cause notice before finalizing any demand. The statutory phrase “it appears” in subsection (1) signifies that tax officers do not need conclusive proof at the notice stage but should have reasonable grounds or prima facie evidence to believe that tax is unpaid, short paid, wrongly refunded, or input tax credit has been wrongly claimed or used.

This threshold prevents the issuance of notices on mere suspicion or without any basis. There must be material on record that justifies the initiation of proceedings, ensuring that taxpayers are not harassed with frivolous demands.

The obligation to issue the SCN is explicitly stated using the word “shall,” underscoring that this is a mandatory step. The purpose of the notice is to apprise the taxpayer of the specific allegations, detailing the statutory contraventions and inviting the taxpayer to explain why the tax should not be demanded. This gives the taxpayer an opportunity to either contest the demand or provide explanations to correct any inadvertent errors.

Failure to issue a show cause notice can vitiate the entire demand process. In Valerius Industries v. Union of India, the Gujarat High Court invalidated an order where tax liability was determined without the issuance of a show cause notice, highlighting the vital procedural requirement embedded in Section 73.

Role of Natural Justice in Section 73 Proceedings

Section 73 is designed to ensure that the principles of natural justice are fully complied with during the recovery process. The right to be heard—expressed in the Latin maxim audi alteram partem—is a key element that safeguards taxpayer interests.

Issuing a show cause notice followed by an opportunity to submit a reply ensures that the taxpayer is not deprived of a fair chance to present their case. The tax authorities are required to consider the taxpayer’s submissions before passing a final adjudication order determining the tax liability.

This procedural fairness helps build trust in the system and reduces the likelihood of disputes escalating unnecessarily. It also protects taxpayers from arbitrary or unjust demands.

Common Scenarios Leading to Demand Under Section 73

There are several typical instances that trigger demands under Section 73:

• Non-payment of Tax: When a taxpayer has failed to pay GST due on their supplies or inward supplies liable to reverse charge.

• Short Payment of Tax: Occurs when the amount of tax declared and paid is less than the actual tax liability.

• Erroneous Refunds: Situations where refunds have been granted incorrectly, often due to misclassification or errors in claims.

• Wrong Availment or Utilization of Input Tax Credit: Cases where the taxpayer has claimed input tax credit to which they are not entitled, or has utilized credits in an improper manner.

In all these cases, the department must issue an SCN detailing the grounds for the proposed demand, providing an opportunity for the taxpayer to respond.

Distinction Between Section 73 and Other Provisions

Section 73 should be distinguished from other sections that govern recovery of GST, especially those involving serious violations. Section 74, for example, deals with cases involving fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts and has a longer limitation period and harsher penalties.

From 2024-25 onwards, Section 74A further expands this regime for cases involving willful evasion. In contrast, Section 73 remains the provision for normal cases where there is no allegation of fraudulent intent, making it less stringent and more focused on routine demands within prescribed timelines.

This distinction is important for taxpayers and practitioners to understand because it affects the procedure, limitation periods, and the quantum of penalties.

Legal Precedents Emphasizing the Importance of SCN

Judicial authorities have repeatedly emphasized that the issuance of a show cause notice is not a mere formality but a fundamental procedural requirement. Courts have set aside tax demand orders where the department bypassed this step.

The ruling in Valerius Industries v. Union of India serves as a landmark precedent, reiterating that orders passed without issuing SCNs violate natural justice. Similarly, other courts have held that vague, non-specific, or silent notices fail to meet the legal standards and thus cannot sustain demands.

Practical Implications for Tax Authorities and Taxpayers

For tax authorities, compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 73 is crucial to ensure that demands withstand judicial scrutiny. Failure to issue proper notices or to consider taxpayer replies can lead to invalidation of the entire proceeding.

Taxpayers, on the other hand, should carefully analyze any show cause notices received. Responding timely and substantively can prevent demands from being confirmed and can avoid further litigation. Understanding the scope and limitations of Section 73 allows taxpayers to protect their rights effectively and avoid unnecessary penalties.

Demand Process Under Section 73

The typical demand process under Section 73 follows these steps:

• The tax department identifies discrepancies or unpaid tax based on available data or audits.

• A show cause notice is issued, outlining the allegations and inviting the taxpayer’s response.

• The taxpayer files a reply explaining or contesting the demand.

• The tax authorities consider the response and conduct hearings if necessary.

• A final adjudication order is passed determining the tax liability, interest, and penalties, if any.

• The taxpayer may then appeal against the order in the prescribed forum.

This stepwise procedure ensures transparency and fairness, balancing the interests of revenue collection with taxpayer rights.

Overview of Procedural Requirements in Section 73 Proceedings

Section 73 of the CGST Act prescribes a well-defined procedure that the tax authorities must follow to issue a demand notice for recovery of unpaid or short-paid GST, erroneous refunds, or wrongful availment/utilization of input tax credit. The procedural safeguards incorporated in this section ensure that the taxpayer is not subjected to arbitrary action without being informed of the allegations and given an opportunity to respond.

A key feature of this procedure is the issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) which acts as the formal communication initiating recovery proceedings. The SCN must clearly state the grounds of demand and the relevant legal provisions that have allegedly been violated.

Once the notice is served, the taxpayer has the right to file a detailed reply addressing each allegation. The tax officer must consider these submissions and may conduct hearings before passing a final adjudication order. This ensures that the demand is based on a fair and transparent process.

Importance of Specificity in the Show Cause Notice

One of the common grounds on which courts have invalidated show cause notices is the lack of specificity. The SCN must clearly mention the exact provision under which demand is proposed and the facts or evidence on which the department relies.

Notices that are vague, imprecise, or refer generically to “non-compliance” without pinpointing the specific statutory violation are vulnerable to being quashed. For example, in the case of Dayamay Enterprise v. State of Tripura, the Tripura High Court struck down a system-generated notice that failed to specify the legal provision or the exact nature of non-compliance, observing that such a notice rendered the hearing an empty formality.

Therefore, tax officers must ensure that every SCN provides adequate detail so that the taxpayer understands the charge and can effectively prepare a defense.

System-Generated Notices and Their Limitations

In the digital age, the GST portal often generates automated notices based on data mismatches or returns filed. While such system-generated SCNs aid in administrative efficiency, they must still conform to legal requirements.

Several notices issued by the system are found to be deficient as they lack specific reasons or cite vague grounds for demand. Courts have repeatedly held that merely issuing a system-generated notice without adequate particulars violates the principles of natural justice.

Tax authorities should ensure that system-generated SCNs are vetted and supplemented with proper explanations before serving them on taxpayers. This preserves the legitimacy of proceedings and avoids unnecessary litigation.

Monetary Thresholds for Issuance of Show Cause Notices

To streamline enforcement and avoid burdening taxpayers with trivial disputes, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has prescribed monetary limits for issuing SCNs and adjudicating cases under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act as well as Section 20 of the IGST Act.

These thresholds aim to focus departmental resources on significant tax discrepancies. For example, demands below a certain amount may not warrant formal adjudication or SCN issuance, thereby reducing administrative costs and taxpayer hardship.

Taxpayers and professionals should stay updated on these monetary limits to assess whether a received notice falls within the prescribed criteria and to explore possible remedies if limits are exceeded.

Challenging SCNs Before Adjudication – Scope and Limitations

It is not uncommon for taxpayers to approach courts immediately after receiving an SCN, challenging its validity or seeking its quashing even before any adjudication order is passed.

Judicial precedents emphasize that issuance of a show cause notice is only a preliminary step and does not amount to final adjudication. Courts generally discourage premature litigation at this stage, urging taxpayers to respond to the notice, exhaust the statutory adjudication and appeal mechanisms, and only then approach the judiciary.

The Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs observed that entertaining frivolous petitions at the SCN stage wastes public time and delays resolution. It stressed that the adjudicating authority should be allowed to consider the issues and pass appropriate orders before judicial intervention.

However, in cases where the SCN violates fundamental procedural requirements or natural justice, writ petitions may be entertained. Courts may intervene where the notice is issued without jurisdiction, is vague, or is otherwise legally defective.

Role of Writ Jurisdiction in SCN Proceedings

Writ jurisdiction acts as a vital safeguard against abuse of power or violation of fundamental rights during GST proceedings. Taxpayers can invoke writ petitions challenging SCNs that suffer from jurisdictional defects or procedural infirmities.

For instance, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Navneet R. Jhanwar v. State Tax Officer quashed a refund rejection order where no show cause notice was issued, depriving the taxpayer of an opportunity to be heard. The court held that such unilateral action was violative of natural justice, and even the existence of an alternative appeal remedy did not bar writ relief.

Thus, writ petitions serve as an effective remedy when the issuing authority ignores essential procedural safeguards or when the notice is so flawed that the taxpayer cannot reasonably respond.

Prohibition on Reopening Settled Issues by Fresh SCNs

A significant principle upheld by the Supreme Court and various high courts is that once an issue has been judicially or administratively settled, the tax authorities cannot reopen the same by issuing a fresh show cause notice on the same grounds.

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories held that SCNs issued repeatedly on settled issues constitute abuse of the process of law and can be quashed. Similarly, in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. India Thermit Corporation Ltd., the court ruled that the department could not re-agitate valuation disputes already decided in prior proceedings.

This principle protects taxpayers from harassment through repetitive litigation and ensures finality in tax matters. Tax authorities must exercise caution and avoid issuing multiple SCNs on identical facts or legal questions.

Limitations on Issuing SCNs to Legal Heirs

The question of whether legal heirs of a deceased taxpayer can be served with SCNs and held liable for GST dues has been addressed by courts with reference to the CGST Act.

The Supreme Court in Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs held that in the absence of explicit statutory provisions, legal heirs cannot be proceeded against for tax recovery. Under Section 93 of the CGST Act, legal representatives become liable only if the business is continued through them or to the extent of assets in the estate when the business is discontinued.

Therefore, issuing SCNs to legal heirs for recovery of GST dues without statutory backing is invalid. This protects heirs from unexpected tax liabilities not expressly provided under the law.

Prohibition Against Prejudging Issues in the SCN

The SCN is intended to initiate a fair adjudication process and must not reveal any bias or preconceived opinion by the issuing officer. A notice demonstrating that the officer has already decided the outcome or is prejudiced is liable to be declared invalid.

In Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, an SCN proposing cancellation of registration was challenged on grounds of bias since the officer had reportedly made up his mind even before the hearing. Courts have consistently held that natural justice demands impartiality and open-minded consideration at the notice stage. This principle ensures that the SCN is a genuine invitation to respond rather than a predetermined verdict.

Requirement to Issue SCN to Each Person Against Whom Proceedings Are Initiated

When the department seeks to proceed against multiple individuals or entities in relation to the same matter, separate show cause notices must be issued to each party. No one can be compelled to answer or subjected to liability without receiving an SCN.

The principle of individual notice and hearing is fundamental to natural justice. The Tribunal upheld this principle in Pankaj Gandhi v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, where proceedings against a manager without issuing an SCN were struck down.

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. held that notices to third parties such as Customs House Agents are invalid unless the liability is expressly extended to them. This ensures that no person is taken by surprise or denied an opportunity to defend themselves.

Effect of Incorrect Mention of Statutory Provisions in the SCN

While the SCN must correctly cite the legal provisions under which demand is proposed, courts have held that mere mention of a wrong section may not necessarily invalidate the proceedings if the nature of the charge is clear and the taxpayer is aware of the allegations.

In Lvr & Dong-In Stone Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, the Tribunal found that despite citing an incorrect provision, the exporters were aware of their alleged lapses and thus the proceedings were not vitiated.

However, quoting an obsolete or repealed section can vitiate the SCN as held in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Peoples Choice. Accuracy and clarity in citing legal provisions contribute to the validity and enforceability of SCNs.

Issues Not Raised in SCN Cannot Be Raised Later

The scope of adjudication is limited to issues expressly raised in the SCN. Authorities cannot introduce new charges or grounds not mentioned in the notice once proceedings are underway.

The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Tata Tech Ltd. clarified that issues not included in the SCN cannot be examined during adjudication as the notice forms the foundation of proceedings.

Similarly, the Allahabad High Court in Ecom Express (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes held that the adjudicating officer must frame the charge initially and cannot modify or improve it later. This prevents unfair surprises and ensures that taxpayers have adequate notice of the case against them.

Clarity and Unambiguity in the Show Cause Notice

For an SCN to be legally sustainable, it must clearly and unambiguously communicate the allegations. Vague notices that confuse the taxpayer or present contradictory claims are not acceptable.

The judgment in United Telecoms Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax emphasized that a notice alleging multiple and inconsistent classifications of services is vague and unsustainable. Clear and precise notices help taxpayers prepare effective responses and promote efficient resolution of disputes.

Validity of SCNs Based on Signature and Authorization

The legal validity of an SCN depends on its proper authorization and signature by the competent officer. An unsigned or improperly signed SCN has no legal effect and proceedings based on it are void from the outset.

The Tribunal in S.P.S. Steels Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise stressed that lawful authority to initiate proceedings is a fundamental requirement and unsigned notices do not meet this criterion. Tax authorities must ensure strict compliance with procedural formalities to avoid invalidation of their demands.

Differentiating Between Departmental Communications and Show Cause Notices

Orders, letters, or communications from the tax department that convey details of tax demand or intention to recover dues are not substitutes for a formal show cause notice.

The Supreme Court in Metal Forgings v. Union of India held that only a notice issued under the specific statutory provision, served within the limitation period, qualifies as an SCN. Other departmental communications do not fulfill this role. This distinction underscores the procedural rigour expected before finalizing tax demands.

Internal Departmental Orders Are Not Show Cause Notices

Preliminary internal orders or views formed by the tax department during investigations do not constitute SCNs. Taxpayers are not entitled to challenge such internal communications directly.

In Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia v. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd., the Supreme Court clarified that the taxpayer’s remedy lies in responding to the formal SCN issued subsequently, rather than attacking the internal departmental view.

This approach allows the department to finalize its stance before issuing an official notice and ensures orderly progression of proceedings.

Adjudication Process Under Section 73

After the show cause notice (SCN) has been issued and the taxpayer has submitted their response, the next crucial phase is adjudication. The tax officer reviews the taxpayer’s reply, examines evidence, and may hold hearings to clarify any doubts before passing a final order determining the tax liability.

The adjudication order must be reasoned and based on material facts. It should address all the points raised by the taxpayer in their response. The authority cannot arbitrarily reject explanations without due consideration, as failure to do so can render the order liable to be set aside in appeal or writ proceedings. Proper adjudication promotes transparency and fairness, ensuring that tax demands are based on a holistic review of facts and law rather than unilateral assumptions.

Time Limits and Limitation Periods for Issuing Orders

Section 73(2) prescribes the limitation period for issuance of show cause notices and adjudication orders. Generally, a notice demanding tax must be issued within three years from the due date of filing the annual return for the relevant financial year.

This time limit is crucial for both taxpayers and authorities to ensure timely resolution of disputes. It prevents reopening of old cases beyond a reasonable period and brings finality to tax matters.

However, where the SCN is issued within the limitation period, the adjudication order can be passed even after the expiry of that period. Delay in adjudication may arise due to litigation or prolonged proceedings, but it does not invalidate the order if the notice was timely issued. Taxpayers should keep track of limitation periods to challenge belated notices or demands that exceed prescribed timelines.

Penalties and Interest in Section 73 Proceedings

Along with the demand of unpaid tax, Section 73 empowers authorities to impose interest and penalties on the taxpayer. Interest is levied for the period of delay in payment of tax at the prescribed rate under Section 50 of the CGST Act. The interest liability is automatic and based on the amount of tax found due.

Penalties under Section 73(1) can be substantial and depend on the nature of default. However, since Section 73 covers cases without fraud or willful misstatement, the penalties are generally moderate compared to Section 74 proceedings. Understanding the quantum and basis of penalties and interest is essential for taxpayers to assess their financial exposure and consider settlement options if available.

Settlement Mechanisms and Compounding of Offences

To reduce litigation and facilitate voluntary compliance, the GST law provides mechanisms such as settlement of cases and compounding of offences.

The Settlement Commission allows taxpayers to settle disputed tax, interest, and penalty amounts by paying an agreed sum, thereby avoiding prolonged proceedings. However, the Commission’s jurisdiction is subject to specific eligibility criteria and timelines.

Compounding of offences under Section 80 of the CGST Act permits taxpayers to admit guilt and pay a prescribed fee to avoid prosecution. This option is usually available for minor offences and can be an effective compliance strategy. Taxpayers facing demands under Section 73 should evaluate the possibility of using these mechanisms to mitigate costs and resolve disputes efficiently.

Appeals and Revision in Section 73 Cases

Taxpayers aggrieved by the adjudication order under Section 73 have the right to appeal before the first appellate authority within the prescribed time frame, usually three months from receipt of the order.

The appellate authority reviews the case on facts and law and may confirm, modify, or annul the order. Further appeals can be preferred to the Appellate Tribunal and, ultimately, to the High Court or Supreme Court under special circumstances.

It is important to note that filing an appeal does not automatically stay the demand or recovery proceedings unless a specific stay is granted by the appellate authority or court. Taxpayers should consider filing appeals with detailed grounds and supporting evidence to enhance the chances of success.

Stay of Demand and Recovery Proceedings

Recovery of tax dues can be a significant financial burden, especially when disputed amounts are large. Under GST law, the taxpayer may seek stay of demand or recovery proceedings by filing an application before the adjudicating officer, appellate authority, or courts.

Stay may be granted based on merits, urgency, and likelihood of success on appeal. However, the authorities exercise discretion and often impose conditions such as payment of a portion of the demand or furnishing security.

Understanding the procedures and grounds for obtaining stay can help taxpayers manage cash flows and avoid immediate financial strain during litigation.

Consequences of Non-Compliance with Section 73 Demands

Ignoring a show cause notice or failure to respond to the SCN within the stipulated time can have serious consequences. The authorities may pass an ex parte order confirming the demand, levy interest and penalty, and initiate recovery proceedings.

Recovery mechanisms under the GST law include attachment of bank accounts, seizure of property, and even arrest in rare cases. Non-compliance can also result in cancellation of GST registration, affecting business continuity.

Taxpayers must take prompt and proactive steps to respond to SCNs and engage with authorities to prevent escalation of disputes.

Importance of Maintaining Proper Documentation and Records

Effective compliance with GST demands requires maintaining detailed and accurate records supporting all returns and claims of input tax credit. Proper documentation helps demonstrate the correctness of tax payments and rebut allegations of short payment or wrongful credit.

Records such as invoices, payment proofs, contracts, and correspondence with suppliers or customers serve as critical evidence during adjudication and appeals. Implementing robust record-keeping systems and audit trails not only facilitates defense against tax demands but also helps in internal compliance and risk management.

Impact of Recent Amendments and Evolving Legal Landscape

The legal framework around demand recovery under GST continues to evolve with periodic amendments and judicial interpretations. For instance, from the financial year 2024-25, Section 74A has been introduced, altering certain procedural aspects related to demands involving fraud or willful misstatement. 

Understanding these changes is essential for taxpayers and practitioners to stay compliant and effectively manage litigation risks. Keeping abreast of circulars, notifications, and landmark judgments helps in adapting compliance strategies and making informed decisions.

Practical Tips for Taxpayers Receiving SCNs Under Section 73

Receiving a show cause notice under Section 73 can be daunting, but a systematic approach can ease the process:

• Carefully examine the SCN and identify the grounds of demand and legal provisions cited.

• Gather all relevant documents and evidence supporting the correctness of your tax filings.

• Consult with tax professionals or legal experts to analyze the notice and prepare a comprehensive reply.

• File the reply within the stipulated time, addressing each allegation factually and legally.

• Attend hearings and cooperate with authorities while safeguarding your rights.

• Monitor timelines diligently for appeals and revision.

• Explore settlement options or compounding where feasible to minimize disputes.

• Maintain transparent and accurate records to support future compliance.

By adopting a proactive and informed stance, taxpayers can protect their interests and avoid adverse consequences.

Role of Professionals and Advisors in Managing Section 73 Proceedings

Navigating the complexities of Section 73 demands requires expertise in GST laws, procedural nuances, and litigation tactics. Tax consultants, chartered accountants, and legal practitioners play a vital role in assisting taxpayers.

Professionals can help interpret the SCN, evaluate risks, draft effective replies, represent before adjudicating authorities and appellate forums, and negotiate settlements.

Engaging competent advisors early in the process can significantly improve outcomes and reduce the stress associated with tax disputes.

Conclusion

To conclude, the process of demand of tax under Section 73 is a critical mechanism that ensures proper compliance and recovery of GST in cases of non-payment, short payment, erroneous refunds, or wrongful input tax credit claims, excluding situations involving fraud or willful misstatement. The mandatory issuance of a show cause notice safeguards the principles of natural justice by allowing taxpayers a fair opportunity to explain and defend their position before any demand is finalized. Adjudication under this section must be thorough, reasoned, and timely, respecting limitation periods and procedural safeguards.

Taxpayers must remain vigilant in responding to notices promptly, maintaining accurate records, and seeking professional guidance to effectively navigate the complexities of GST proceedings. They should also be aware of available remedies, including appeals, stay applications, and settlement options, to mitigate risks and financial burdens. The evolving legal landscape requires continuous monitoring to ensure compliance with current laws and procedures.

Ultimately, adherence to due process and transparent communication between taxpayers and authorities promotes a fair and efficient tax administration, balancing revenue protection with taxpayer rights.