Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for initiating proceedings under Section 73 of the JGST Act leads to a violation of principles of natural justice, rendering any adjudication order non-est in the eye of law.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including writ of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the summary of the order contained in Form GST DRC 07 dated 04.12.2020 as well as Summary of rectification/withdrawal order contained in Form GST DRC 08 dated 07.12.2020 issued by respondent no.5 pertaining to the periods 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 (Annexure-4 & 5 series) wherein respondent no.5 has directed the petitioner to make payment of tax, interest and penalty on alleged grounds of purported adjudication order passed by respondent no.3.

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/direction/order including writ of declaration, declaring that the purported order passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure-3) in alleged exercise of power under Section 61 & 73 of JGST Act, 2017 without having any authority for doing so, as communicated to the petitioner vide Form GST DRC 07 dated 04.12.2020 as well as Form GST DRC 08 dated 07.12.2020 is wholly illegal and arbitrary having been passed in utter violation of the provisions of the JGST Act, and in utter violation of the principle of natural justice actuated with malice in law against the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case as disclosed in the instant writ application are that on 11.1.2020 by the order of Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Admin), Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh an inspection was conducted by the joint team of officers of Investigation Bureau and Ramgarh Circle in the premises of the petitioner and an Inspection Report was prepared. At the bottom of the inspection report (Annexure-2/6) petitioner was directed to appear on 17.1.2020 before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Admin) Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh failing which proceeding under Sections 73, 50(1) and 125 of JGST Act would be initiated. In the Inspection Report, the inspecting team has also alleged three discrepancies against the petitioner namely, short of goods in physical stock to the tune of Rs. 4,26,734.01/-, short of goods in summary stock for Rs.19918.00/- and failure to declare additional place of business and thereby directed the petitioner to submit his explanation for aforesaid discrepancies along with purchase invoices and payment evidences before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Admin), Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh on 17.01.2020, otherwise, the action would be taken against the petitioner under Sections 73, 50(1) and 125 of the Act.

In pursuance of the inspection report, the proceeding of enquiry was initiated by respondent no.3 and the petitioner was directed to appear before the said authority along with requisite books of accounts and pursuant thereto; the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.3 along with its books of accounts.

Interestingly; pursuant to the inspection dated 11.01.2020, petitioner was served summary of the order in Form GST DRC 07 separately for the period 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-2021, all dated 04.12.2020 (Annexture-4 series) wherein alleged amount of tax, interest and penalty have been levied against the petitioner by the Respondent No.5 in spite of the fact that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the respondent No.3 pursuant to the said inspection. The petitioner was also served three rectification orders as well as summary of rectification/withdrawal order in Form GST DRC 08 all dated 07.12.2020 (Annexture-5 series) which were also issued by respondent no.5 in respect to three of the Form GST DRC 07 issued previously against the petitioner.

3. Mr. Vishnu Deo Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case no pre-show cause notice in form of Form GST DRC-01A was issued intimating him of the liability of tax, interest applicable and/or penalty which if not paid would lead to initiation of adjudication process as contemplated under Section 73 of JGST Act. Learned counsel contended that due to th