2021 (11) TMI 721 - HC - GST

Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the UPGST Act - mandatory opportunity contemplated by the Rule has been denied to the writ petitioner - Rule 142 (1A) and Rule 142 (2A) of UPGST Rules - HELD THAT - Though the order is appealable, there is a patent error has crept in the impugned order inasmuch as no adjudication notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner before passing the order dated 18.02.2021. That being an undisputed fact, no useful purpose would be served in relegating the petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy, at this stage. The order dated 18.02.2021 is set aside. It is provided that that the petitioner may treat the order dated 18.02.2021 as the final notice issued to it under Section 74(1) of the Act and submit its reply within four weeks from today - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to proceedings under Section 74 of UPGST Act and notice dated 08.01.2021; Challenge to order dated 18.02.2021.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the UPGST Act and the notice dated 08.01.2021, as well as to quash the order dated 18.02.2021. The petitioner argued that the respondent lacked jurisdiction as the proper authority should have been the Central GST Authority. Additionally, it was contended that the mandatory opportunity under Rule 142 (1A) and Rule 142 (2A) was denied, as the preliminary notice was not followed by a proper notice for adjudication. The petitioner also cited difficulties in raising objections timely due to the pandemic, as the sole proprietor was a senior citizen advised to take precautions.

Upon fresh hearing, the court noted the petitioner's submission that the notice dated 08.01.2021 was preliminary under Section 74(5) of the UPGST Act, and the respondent should have issued a proper notice under Section 74(1) before proceeding with adjudication. The demand order passed on 18.02.2021 did not follow the proper adjudication process, as no notice was issued to the petitioner before the order. The court found a patent error in the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the petitioner to treat the order as the final notice under Section 74(1) and submit a reply within four weeks. The court directed all proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the law, emphasizing expeditious conclusion.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, setting aside the order dated 18.02.2021 and providing the petitioner with an opportunity to respond within the specified timeline. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and ensuring proper adjudication proceedings under the UPGST Act.