2023 (10) TMI 931 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - jurisdiction - non-issuance of pre show-cause notice consultation - non-conducting of pre-consultation hearing - HELD THAT - Admittedly, on an earlier occasion, when show-cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, petitioner filed W.P.No.15871 of 2023, primarily on the ground of jurisdiction. The said writ petition was disposed of in NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS (INDIA) PVT LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2023 (6) TMI 1318 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT , wherein, the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court categorically made it clear that if proper officer intends to issue fresh show-cause notice, he shall hold consultation with the petitioner. Consequently, fresh show-cause notice dated 21.07.2023 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax i.e., 5th respondent, who according to the petitioner, is proper officer. Therefore, the principal ground agitated by the petitioner that the officer lacks jurisdiction is not available to the petitioner. Secondly, the Hon ble Division Bench had directed the respondents 2 to 6 that if the respondents intend to issue fresh show-cause notice, the proper officer shall hold pre show-cause consultation. From the material placed before this Court, the proper officer had issued pre show-cause consultation notices dated 09.02.2023 and 12.07.2023 in compliance with the directions given by this Court in NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS (INDIA) PVT LTD. The writ petition is devoid of merits and thus, liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the jurisdiction of the proper officer, issuance of show-cause notice, and compliance with previous court orders.

Jurisdiction of Proper Officer:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, claiming he lacked jurisdiction. The High Court had previously set aside a show-cause notice and directed consultation before issuing a fresh notice. The Additional Commissioner, considered the proper officer by the petitioner, issued a fresh notice. The Court found that the officer did have jurisdiction, dismissing the petitioner's claim.

Issuance of Show-Cause Notice:
The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice seeking recovery of an amount claimed as erroneous refund, interest, and penalty. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without proper consultation and violated principles of judicial discipline. The Court noted that the proper officer had issued pre-consultation notices as directed in a previous order. The writ petition challenging the show-cause notice was deemed meritless and dismissed, allowing the petitioner to respond before the authority.

Compliance with Previous Court Orders:
The High Court had previously directed proper officer consultation before issuing a fresh show-cause notice. The respondents complied with this direction by issuing pre-consultation notices. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting an extension for passing the original order. The judgment concluded without costs, allowing the petitioner to present defenses before the authority in accordance with the law.