2024 (7) TMI 1515 - HC - GST

Validity of notice issued u/s 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - non-consideration of petitioner's reply - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The petitioner's grievance is with regard to non consideration of its earlier reply where it had pointed out that the notice was issued giving facts and figures relating to M/s Paridhee Creation with which the petitioner has no relation at all. The interest of justice would be served if the respondent considers the reply of the petitioner given earlier with regard to its own company and mismatch/deficiencies, if any found in its reasons - petitioner is directed to submit a detailed reply to notice under Section 73 within a week from today. It shall refer only to its own returns and not to the case of M/s Paridhee Creation. It is open to the petitioner to deny its liability so far as notice under Section 73 addressed to M/s Paridhee Creation is concerned. The writ petition is disposed off.

Issues:
1. Validity of the notice issued under GST DRC-01 dated 28.05.2024 under section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Alleged discrepancy and mismatch between form GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B.
3. Consideration of petitioner's earlier reply by the respondent.
4. Request for extension of time to submit a detailed reply.
5. Applicability of notice under Section 73 to the petitioner.

The petitioner, a company engaged in Cash Logistics business, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an impugned notice issued by the respondent under GST DRC-01. The petitioner contended that it was registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and had replied to a previous notice pointing out discrepancies. Subsequently, a new notice was issued under Section 73 proposing a demand and penalty. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without proper consideration of its earlier reply. The State-respondent claimed that a notice under Section 61 was issued first, followed by the notice under Section 73 after finding the petitioner's explanation unsatisfactory. The petitioner requested an extension of time to submit a detailed reply, which was granted until 25.7.2024. The Court noted that the notice under Section 73 referenced details related to another entity, M/s Paridhee Creation, with which the petitioner had no connection. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a detailed reply within a week, focusing only on its own returns and denying liability concerning the notice addressed to M/s Paridhee Creation. The respondent was instructed to make an informed decision after a personal hearing with the petitioner's representative within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of, emphasizing the need for the respondent to consider the petitioner's earlier reply and address the issue appropriately.

This judgment primarily addressed the validity of the notice issued under GST DRC-01 to the petitioner, focusing on the alleged discrepancy and mismatch between form GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The Court highlighted the importance of the respondent considering the petitioner's earlier reply, which pointed out the notice's inaccuracies related to another entity. The petitioner's request for an extension of time to provide a detailed reply was acknowledged, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of the petitioner's case. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a reply within a week, solely addressing its own returns and disclaiming any liability concerning the notice meant for M/s Paridhee Creation. Additionally, the respondent was instructed to conduct a personal hearing with the petitioner's representative to make an informed decision within a specified timeframe, ensuring procedural fairness and thorough consideration of the petitioner's submissions.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of procedural fairness and accurate consideration of the petitioner's submissions in response to the notice issued under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act. By directing the petitioner to provide a detailed reply focusing on its own returns and denying liability related to another entity, the Court aimed to ensure a just and informed decision-making process by the respondent. The judgment emphasized the need for proper assessment and fair treatment of the petitioner's case, underscoring the principles of natural justice and due process in resolving the issues raised in the writ petition.

← Previous Next →