Jitta Ramana Reddy vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court did not decide on the merits of the case. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority. The respondents did not object to the withdrawal but noted potential delays in filing an appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. It granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority with a statutory pre-deposit within two weeks, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The Court stipulated that upon filing, the appellate authority would consider the delay condonation application in accordance with the law and, if satisfied, entertain the appeal on its merits. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Jitta Ramana Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging a manual combined show cause notice (SCN) and consequential orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The SCN, dated October 22, 2024, pertained to financial years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, alleging under-declared tax of Rs. 41,80,000/- (CGST Rs. 20,90,000/- and SGST Rs. 20,90,000/-) and a penalty of Rs. 4,18,000/- (CGST Rs. 2,09,000/- and SGST Rs. 2,09,000/-) for the financial year 2021-2022. The petitioner claimed this was done without considering a voluntary payment made via DRC-03 on July 18, 2022, and without granting a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The petitioner sought to declare the SCN and subsequent orders, including the Form GST DRC-07 order dated February 13, 2025, as illegal, null, and void.

Key Issues

1. Whether the manual combined show cause notice (SCN) and consequential orders, including the Form GST DRC-07 order, issued by the Assistant Commissioner for financial years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, are arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, and the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 14, 19(21)(g), 21, and 265. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the SCN and subsequent orders were passed without considering their voluntary payment made through DRC-03 and without providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard. They contended that these actions were arbitrary and violated statutory provisions and constitutional rights. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents. However, the counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 did not object to the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal but submitted that the appeal, if filed, might be delayed.