2024 (8) TMI 308 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - Challenge to ex- parte demand order and SCN - impugned SCN had given less time than is provided u/s 73(2) of the U.P. GST Act for submitting reply - mismatch in the GSTR filed by the petitioner - HELD THAT - The adjournment application would have been entertained in case the petitioner would have given a written reply to the show cause notice and then asked for adjournment of personal hearing. Neither application dated 23.1.2024 nor application dated 15.4.2024 was received in the office of respondents. This Court is of the considered opinion that the law sought to be relied upon by counsel for the petitioner as settled in M/s Mohan Agencies Versus State of U.P. Another in Writ Tax No. 58 of 2023 dated 13.2.2023, is inapplicable in the facts of the case. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to ex-parte demand order and show cause notice under the State Goods & Service Tax Act.
2. Allegation of violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
3. Consideration of relevant legal precedents.
4. Dismissal of the writ petition and option to file an appeal under section 107 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private limited company registered under GSTIN No. 09AAVCS9906P1Z1, filed a petition challenging an ex-parte demand order and a show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner under section 73 of the State Goods & Service Tax Act. The petitioner claimed to have filed returns timely during the financial year 2018-2019 and requested the court to quash the impugned orders. The petitioner highlighted issues with the notices received, including insufficient time for response and lack of opportunity for personal hearing.

2. The petitioner contended that the impugned notices violated the Principles of Natural Justice as provided under section 75 of the Act. The petitioner raised concerns about not being able to submit a reply due to discrepancies in the notices, such as the absence of a specified date and time for personal hearing. The petitioner requested additional time to respond and for a personal hearing, citing the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in such matters.

3. The respondent's counsel argued that the notices were issued in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act. The respondent emphasized that under section 61, only a reply was required without the necessity of a personal hearing, as evidenced by the notice issued on 2.11.2023. The respondent also pointed out that the show cause notice dated 23.12.2023 clearly indicated a time, date, and place for a personal hearing, to which the petitioner did not respond adequately. The respondent highlighted discrepancies in the petitioner's submissions regarding adjournment applications and their alleged reasons.

4. The court, after considering the arguments presented, dismissed the writ petition. The court found the legal precedent cited by the petitioner to be inapplicable to the current case. The petitioner was granted the option to file an appeal under section 107 of the Act, thereby providing a legal recourse to address the grievances raised in the petition. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and legal principles in matters concerning tax disputes under the GST Act.