2021 (9) TMI 468 - HC - GST

Seeking a direction to the respondent no.3 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner by passing a speaking order - on the same issue and transaction two different authorities have initiated the proceedings - HELD THAT - It is deemed proper to dispose of the present petition by directing the respondent no.3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a speaking order before proceeding further in the matter - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking direction to decide representation filed by the petitioner and quash summons issued by State Tax Authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the business of cutting and trading of Iron Steel, filed a petition seeking a direction for the respondent no.3 to decide the representation filed by them and to quash the summons issued by the State Tax Authority. The petitioner had received a notice under the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging that they had availed Input Tax Credit on purchases made from a Non-Existing Firm. The petitioner contended that two different authorities had initiated proceedings on the same issue and transaction, which they deemed illegal and unjustified. The petitioner had already submitted a detailed reply and representation. The court, considering the circumstances, directed the respondent no.3 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with the law by passing a speaking order before proceeding further in the matter.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, highlighted the petitioner's contention regarding the initiation of proceedings by two different authorities on the same issue and transaction. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument and directed the respondent no.3 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner before proceeding further in the matter. This decision aimed to ensure that the petitioner's rights were protected and that due process was followed in resolving the tax-related issues raised by the authorities.

Overall, the judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice in tax matters. By directing the respondent no.3 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation through a speaking order, the court sought to uphold the rule of law and provide a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case effectively. The decision reflected a balanced approach to resolving the legal dispute and ensuring that the rights of the parties involved were safeguarded within the framework of the relevant tax laws and regulations.