9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1201 - HC - GSTSeeking to set aside Summary of the Show Cause Notice - only Summary of Show Cause Notice has been issued and no proper Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court, while considering the similar matter in the case of M/S. NKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED. VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, RANCHI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, GODDA 2021 (10) TMI 880 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT , has held that Since we are of the considered view that the impugned show cause notice as contained in Annexure-1 does not fulfill the ingredients of a proper show-cause notice and thus amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, the challenge is entertainable in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned notice at Annexure-1 and the summary of show-cause notice at Annexure-2 in Form GST DRC-01 are quashed. In the instant case, from bare perusal of the order-sheet, it would transpire that Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued to the Petitioner on 27.09.2019 and, although no date of compliance was given, the Petitioner, suo-motu, filed its reply on 22.10.2019. Thereafter, no date of hearing was fixed in the matter and, straightaway, vide order-sheet dated 02.09.2020, it has been recorded that Summary of Demand in Form GST DRC-07 is being issued to the Petitioner. Thus, admittedly, no opportunity of hearing was also granted to the Petitioner before the impugned demand was raised upon the Petitioner. There are no option, but to quash and set aside the Summary of Show Cause Notice contained in Form GSTR DRC-01 dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure 2/1) issued by Respondent No. 2 and consequently, set aside the adjudication order dated 02.09.2020 contained in the order-sheet pertaining to financial year 2018-19 and, consequently also, the Summary of the Order issued in form GST DRC-07 dated 04.09.2020 issued by Respondent No. 2. However, Respondents would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceeding in accordance with law, if so advised. The writ application is allowed and disposed of.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the validity of the show cause notice, the lack of proper hearing, and the legality of the adjudication order. Validity of Show Cause Notice: The petitioner sought relief for quashing the "Summary of the Show Cause Notice" as it did not meet the requirements of a proper show cause notice and violated the Principle of natural Justice. The petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing and was issued a notice pointing out discrepancies in the return filed. The court noted that only a summary of the show cause notice was issued, and no proper show cause notice was given to the petitioner. Citing previous judgments, the court quashed the summary of the show cause notice and ordered that fresh proceedings could be initiated if necessary. Lack of Proper Hearing: The petitioner challenged the lack of a fixed date for compliance and the absence of a proper hearing before the demand was raised. The court observed that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before the demand was raised, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Referring to relevant provisions, the court held that the lack of a proper hearing was a clear issue in the case. Quashing the summary of the demand, the court allowed for fresh proceedings to be initiated in accordance with the law. Legality of Adjudication Order: The petitioner also contested the legality of the adjudication order, stating that no proper show cause notice was issued, and only a summary of the demand was provided. The court, in line with previous decisions, found that the adjudication order was passed without granting a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the court set aside the adjudication order and the summary of the order issued by the respondent. The respondents were given the option to initiate fresh proceedings if deemed necessary.
|
