2023 (12) TMI 73 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - non speaking SCN - insufficient for the petitioner/assessee to prepare an effective reply and defend himself - HELD THAT - It is obvious that the impugned show-cause notice contains enough material to enable petitioner/assessee to submit an effective reply so as to prevent the said show-cause notice from being sacrificed at the alter of principles of natural justice. The details in the show-cause notice satisfy the per-requisites prescribed in Form GST DRC -01 which is statutory in nature. Thus, the contents of the show-cause notice cannot be termed as deficient or inadequate preventing the petitioner/assessee to prepare and file an effective reply and defend himself before the Proper Officer. If petitioner is of the view that certain additional document/material is required for filing an effective reply to the same, then petitioner could have very well demanded the same from the Proper Officer by disclosing the relevancy of such evidence/material to the issue involved - However, what is noticeable in this case is that no such representation was made by the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice and, therefore, it is presumed that petitioner has no grievance against the show-cause notice. This Court sees no reason to interfere in this matter especially in view of the non-availed statutory remedy of appeal u/S 107 of the M.P. GST Act, 2017 - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to the legality, validity, and propriety of a show-cause notice and consequential order under Section 73 of the GST Act on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.

Summary:
The writ petition challenged a show-cause notice and an order issued under Section 73 of the GST Act, alleging that the notice was non-speaking and insufficient for the petitioner to prepare an effective reply, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the notice did not provide enough material for a proper defense. The Court noted that the notice contained details of tax, interest, and penalty demanded, as well as a summary of the case and grounds for scrutiny. The Court found that the notice met the requirements prescribed in Form GST DRC-01 and provided adequate information for the petitioner to respond effectively.

The Court emphasized that if the petitioner required additional documents or material for a proper reply, they could have requested it from the Proper Officer by demonstrating its relevance. However, as the petitioner did not make any such representation, it was assumed that they had no objection to the notice. The Court cited a previous order in a similar case to support this view. Despite the petitioner citing certain legal precedents, the Court refrained from delving into their applicability, as the specific provisions of the M.P. GST Act had already been addressed in a previous decision.

Ultimately, the Court found no grounds for interference in the matter, especially considering that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the M.P. GST Act had not been availed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the Court declined to engage further on the issues raised by the petitioner.