Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
M/S Origin B.R. Digitalsigns Private Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.And Others - Respondents
WRIT TAX NO. 23 OF 2024.
Decided On : 16-02-2024
For the Petitioner: Pushpila Bisht, Amrendra Ashok, Jai Priya Swapnil.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Failure to provide a copy of the SIB report to the petitioner violated principles of natural justice, prejudicing their ability to respond to charges.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Assessment order challenged - Demand of Rs. 2,85,58,320/- created against petitioner for financial year 2018-19 based on SIB report - Petitioner denied access to SIB report, violating principles of natural justice - Court held that failure to provide material prejudiced petitioner's case. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Right to be heard - A person must be provided with all material on which charges are based to adequately respond. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a private limited firm, challenged the assessment order and subsequent appellate order, asserting that they had filed returns for the relevant financial year and were not given a copy of the SIB report used against them.
Findings of Court:
The assessment orders were set aside due to violation of natural justice principles, and the matter was remitted back for proper procedure.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was denied access to the SIB report and if this constituted a violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that not providing the SIB report severely prejudiced the petitioner’s ability to defend against the charges, rendering the proceedings arbitrary.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Alok Mathur, J.
Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 19.5.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Lucknow thereby creating demands of Rs. 2,85,58,320/- against the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.10.2023 passed on the appeal by Additional Commissioner Grade - 2 (Appeal)-V, State Tax, Lucknow.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are a private limited firm registered under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2017) having its registration No.GSTIN-09AABC07253MIZZ. Petitioner-firm undertakes the business operations of as an advertising agency handling domains of indoor digital prints and outdoor advertising. It is further stated that they are doing business for more than two decades and have been filing returns regularly.
4. The present dispute pertains to the financial year 2018-19 where it seems that a survey was conducted on the premises of the petitioner and based upon the report of the said survey a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the adjudicating authority to produce the documents pertaining to financial year 2018-19. It seems that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice issued by the adjudicating authority consequent to which order dated 9.6.2021 was passed creating demands against the petitioner and also levying penalty.
5. The petitioner filed an appeal before Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-V, State Tax, Lucknow which has also been rejected by means of the impugned order. It seems that after filing the said appeal the petitioner did not put in appearance before the appellate authority and in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellate authority concurred with the assessment order passed by the adjudicating authority and upheld the same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts considered by the adjudicating authority were incorrect in as much as the entire exercise is based on the fact that the petitioner did not file return for the financial year 2018-19. Controverting the same it was stated that the return for the financial year 2018-19 were duly filed by the petitioner which were placed on record by the adjudicating authority. It seems that survey of the business premises of the petitioner was undertaken where documents and registers which were available on the business premises were seized from which it transpires that the petitioner has been conducting business from two accounts of the bank, namely, Karur Vysya Bank and one of the accounts Rs. 405.38 lakhs have been transferred while from other account Rs. 129.95 lakhs have been received and it was stated that a total transaction of Rs. 535.33 lakhs was done by the petitioner during the said period. It was further stated that for the said period the petitioner had filed his report of GSTR Form 3 B and disclosed business only for an amount of Rs. 207.988 lakhs and accordingly the remaining amount of Rs. 327.35 lakhs was not brought on record and consequently it was held that there was intention to evade tax and consequently due tax was imposed along with penalty. As the petitioner did not appear before the appellate authority the version of the petitioner does not find mention by the appellate authority while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has merely assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the entire exercise was conducted on the basis of the SIB report and it was stated that neither by the adjudicating authority nor by the appellate authority the petitioner was provided copy of the SIB report. It was stated that the petitioner was rendered remedy less in as much as he could not contradict the findings recorde
