9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in addition to the issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order challenged in the instant writ petition is contrary to the provisions of Section 73 as well as Rule 142 (1) (a) of the Rules as the said impugned Orders were passed with issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. Whether the determination of tax as well as the order attached to the Summary to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and the Summary of the Order in GST DRC-07 can be said to be the Show Cause Notice and order respectively, this Court duly dealt with what would constitute a Show Cause Notice, the Statement as per Section 73 (3) as well as the Summary to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and Summary of the Statement in GST DRC-02. This Court had also opined above that the statement to be provided by the Proper Officer in terms with Section 73 (3) cannot be said to be a Show Cause Notice which is required to be issued in terms with Section 73 (1). Therefore, the submission of the respondents that the statement attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice is the Show Cause Notice is completely misconceived and contrary to Section 73 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n disposed off. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA For the Petitioner : MS. N Hawelia, Ms. M.L. Gope For the Respondent : Dy. S.G.I., SC, Finance and Taxation, SC, GST. ORDER Heard Ms. N Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel SGST. 2] In this case, the petitioner was issued a Summary of the Show Cause Notice dated 01.12.2023 in the GST DRC-01. In the said Summary of the Show Cause Notice, it was mentioned that the Show Cause Notice was attached. Along with the said Summary of the Show Cause Notice, there was an attachment to the determination of tax. The petitioner did not reply to the Show Cause Notice in view of the fact that there was no Show Cause Notice attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice. Pursuant thereto, a Summary of the Order dated 01.12.2023 was issued in GST DRC-07. To the said Summary of the Order uploaded in GST DRC-07, there was an attachment stating the manner in which the determination was made. The reason assigned for passing of the said order was that the taxpayer had not replied or contested the notice, and as such, had been agreed with the terms of the notice. It is relevant to mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oid and inoperative. (B) The learned counsel further submitted that in the case of Nkas Services Private Limited vs. State of Jharkhand Others , reported in (2022) 99 GSTR 145 , the learned Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court had dealt with the question as regards issuance of a Summary of Show Cause Notice in GST Form DRC-01 and held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice as issued in Form GST DRC-01 cannot be a substitute to the requirement of a proper Show Cause Notice. The learned counsel had also referred to another judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of LC Infra Projects Pvt. Limited vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2020) 73 GSTR 248 . 4] Per contra, Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned standing counsel for the Finance and Taxation Department of the Government of Assam submits that the respondent authorities have issued the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 which was accompanied by the determination of tax which as per the respondents would have provided all the details so that the petitioners could have submitted the reply. The learned counsel, however, fairly submits that there is no separate Show Cause Notice apart from the determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utilized. for any reason other than the reason of fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. 8] Taking into account that it is only in the circumstances referred to above, the Proper Officer is required to issue a Show Cause Notice, therefore, the Show Cause Notice is required to specifically mention the reason(s) and the circumstances why the provision of Section 73 had been set into motion. The person against whom the said Show Cause Notice is issued would only have an adequate opportunity to submit a representation justifying that the prerequisites for issuance of Show Cause Notice is not there if and only if the reason(s) for issuance of the Show Cause is specifically mentioned in the Show Cause Notice. 9] Section 73 further stipulates that upon consideration of the representations, if any, the Proper Officer shall pass the order under Section 73 (9) determining the amount of tax, interest and penalty. 10] It is also apposite to mention that Section 73 (2) and Section 73 (10) are interconnected in as much as Section 73 (10) stipulates that within three years from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the financial year, the order under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irement of a proper Show Cause Notice. Similarly, in the case of LC Infra Projects Pvt. Limited (supra), the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court had also observed that the issuance of a Show Cause Notice is sine qua non to proceed with the recovery of interest payable thereon under Section 50 of the Act and penalty leviable under the provisions of the Act or the Rules. 15] From the above analysis, this Court is of the view that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice along with the attachment containing the determination of tax cannot be said to be a valid initiation of proceedings under Section 73 without issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. The Summary of the Show Cause Notice is in addition to the issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order challenged in the instant writ petition is contrary to the provisions of Section 73 as well as Rule 142 (1) (a) of the Rules as the said impugned Orders were passed with issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice. 16] Whether the determination of tax as well as the order attached to the Summary to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and the Summary of the Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 pertains to Registration whereas in respect to Demand and Recovery, it is Chapter XVIII. 20] Now therefore a question arises as to whether Rule 26 (3) can be applicable to Chapter-XVIII when the said Sub-Rule on refers to Chapter-III. In the case of M/s Silver Oak Villas LLP (supra), the learned Division Bench of the Telangana High Court had applied Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017 even to Chapter-XVIII of the Rules of 2017. In the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row (supra), the learned Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the signatures cannot be dispensed with and Sections 160 and 169 cannot save an order, notice, communication which did not contain a signature. In another judgment of the learned Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Railsyls Engineers Private Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Central goods and Services Tax (Appeals-11) and Anr., reported in (2023) 112 GSTR 143 , the Delhi High Court held that there was a requirement of at least putting the digital signatures on the Show Cause Notice and Order in Original. 21] A perusal of the provisions of Section 73 would show that the Show Cause Notice is required to be issued by the Proper Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is an option given for personal hearing at Sl. No.7. As stated above, the petitioner had specifically filled up the Column as Yes wherein the option for personal hearing was mentioned. Inspite of that, there was no opportunity of hearing afforded to those petitioner. 25] The learned Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Limited (supra) had categorically observed that when the statute contains a mandate of hearing, the same has to be granted, else it would render the provision porous. 26] This Court is of the opinion that when the statute is clear to provide an opportunity of hearing, there is a requirement of providing such opportunity. In fact a perusal of the Form GST DRC-01 enclosed to the writ petition shows that details have been given as regards the date by which the reply has to be submitted; date of personal hearing; time of personal hearing and venue of personal hearing. It is seen that in the Summary of the Show Cause Notice only the date for submission of reply has been mentioned. In respect to other details as stated above have been mentioned to as NA . It may be that the Proper Officer assumed that based on the reply he/she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice and Statement as well as passing of the Order as per the mandate of Section 73 by the Proper Officer. As initiation of a proceedings under Section 73 and passing of an order under the same provision have consequences. The Show Cause Notice, Statement as well as the Order are all required to be authenticated in the manner stipulated in Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the Impugned Order challenged in the writ petition are in violation of Section 75 (4) as no opportunity of hearing was given as already discussed herein above. 28] Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.04.2024 issued by the respondent no.3 is hereby set aside and quashed. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that it is on account of certain technicalities and the manner in which the impugned order was passed, this Court interfered with the impugned order and hence set aside and quashed the same. It is also relevant to take note of that the respondent authorities were under the impression that issuance of attachment of the determination of tax which was attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice would constitute a valid Show Cause Notice. 29] Und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
