2021 (9) TMI 1007 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - adequate service of the show cause notice, preceding that order not made - HELD THAT - The impugned order came to be passed after service of soft copies of the show cause notice. The petitioner only denies service of the hard copy of the same and has further submitted that the reply of the same could not be submitted as it did not exactly comprehend the nature of the proceedings initiated against it. As to the other submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, those point to irregular exercise of jurisdiction but not inherent lack of jurisdiction. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case, the petitioner files an appeal along with the stay application within a period of two weeks' from today, the same may be entertained on its own merits.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the tax period 2019-20 (July, September, and October) - Allegation of inadequate service of show cause notice and violation of principle of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 07.08.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The primary contention raised was the lack of adequate service of the show cause notice preceding the order. Additionally, it was argued that the Form DRC-01A was not issued as required by Rule 142(1A) of the U.P. GST Rules, 2017, and the show cause notice did not mention details of the demand or refer to any Relied Upon Documents ('RUDs'), thus alleging a violation of the principle of natural justice.

The Standing Counsel for the State contended that the petitioner had an adequate remedy of appeal available and, therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. It was clarified that the issue was not the absence of notice issuance but the lack of physical copy service. The petitioner's argument regarding procedural irregularities was acknowledged, but it was emphasized that such irregularities did not amount to an inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the record, the Court noted that the impugned order was passed after the service of soft copies of the show cause notice. While the petitioner denied receiving the hard copy and claimed a lack of understanding of the proceedings, the Court found that these issues pointed towards procedural irregularities rather than a fundamental lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere, citing the availability of an appeal remedy for the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner files an appeal along with a stay application within two weeks, it would be entertained on its merits.