2023 (12) TMI 356 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - Form GST DRC-01 served on the petitioner contains only the summary - annexure to DRC-01 was not furnished to the petitioner to enable them to respond - opportunity granted was not real but illusory - HELD THAT - This Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the impugned order suffers from more than one infirmity. Firstly, DRC-01 is not supported by the Annexure to show cause notice and thus the petitioner was not provided with the particulars necessary to respond. Secondly, the assessment order is made on 17.03.2020. One fails to understand as to how the show cause notice as well as the assessment order has been made on the very same day. Thus, the impugned order is made without affording any opportunity. Assuming that the order is made on 19.03.2020, it is submitted that 48 hours notice is nevertheless inadequate to respond. This Court finds that the opportunity granted was not real but illusory, thereby vitiating the proceedings. The impugned order is set-aside - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the challenge to an impugned order dated 19.03.2020 made within 2 days of issuance of Form GST DRC-01, lack of opportunity for the petitioner to respond, the timing of assessment orders, and the availability of statutory remedies.

Summary:

Challenge to Impugned Order:
The writ petition challenges the order dated 19.03.2020, contending that it was made shortly after the issuance of Form GST DRC-01, which only contained a summary without providing the necessary annexure for the petitioner to respond adequately. The petitioner argues that the quick succession of orders indicates a lack of real opportunity granted.

Timing of Assessment Orders:
Another order dated 17.03.2020, Form GST DRC-01, was mentioned, raising concerns that an assessment order in Form GST ASMT-07 was made on the same day, leaving insufficient time for the petitioner to respond effectively. The court notes the lack of explanation from the Revenue regarding the simultaneous issuance of orders.

Availability of Statutory Remedies:
The Respondent argues that all orders are appealable, suggesting that the writ petition should not be entertained. It is pointed out that previous notices were issued to the petitioner, contradicting the claim of inadequate opportunity. However, the court acknowledges exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such as violations of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction.

Court Decision:
The court finds multiple flaws in the impugned order, including the lack of support for DRC-01 with the necessary annexure and the questionable timing of the assessment order. Due to these infirmities, the impugned order is set aside, allowing the Respondent to re-assess after providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity. The writ petition is disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.