Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RITU BAHRI, MANISHA BATRA, JJ.
M/s. T.R. Enterprises – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 27461 of 2019
Decided On : 04-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the authority under cgst act (Para 1) |
| 2. responses from respondents regarding the order (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioner's lack of communication with counsel (Para 3) |
| 4. petition disposed, remedy available (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Ms. Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is seeking quashing of order in Form DRC-07 dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-14) passed by respondent No.3-Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar. The challenge made in this writ petition is on the ground that he has no power under IGST to issue such notice and this order is in contradiction of Section 75 (7) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short the CGST Act, 2017) as the demand raised in the impugned order is more than the demand proposed in the notice Form DRC-01.
2. After notice of this petition, replies on respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 have been filed separately. As per reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4, proper officer of the State under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 has already issued notice on 06.12.2018 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.4 has not summoned the petitioner again with respect to the above fact, the proper officer of the Sale Tax was informed vide letter dated 02.02.2019. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, they are not pursuing anything against the petitioner. As per reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, the Excise and Taxation Officer has already passed the order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-14), and the same is appealable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in touch with him.
4. Hence, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage as the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.4 had also initiated similar proceedings, does not survive as per reply filed by respondent No.4 and order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-14) is appealable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with law.
The court established that the failure to issue a mandatory show-cause notice under Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules prior to initiating proceedings is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates any subse....
The issuance of a show cause notice and order without providing the opportunity for a personal hearing violates principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that inadequate notice particulars denied the petitioner an effective opportunity to respond, necessitating the annulment of the order and further proceedings.
The jurisdiction of tax authorities cannot be challenged until the affected party responds to a show cause notice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
