M.G.P. Store vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (State Tax)

Facts

The petitioner, M.G.P. Store, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the second respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that their reply to a show cause notice was not properly considered, either being ignored or not adequately addressed in the impugned order. They argued that this failure to apply due mind to their reply violated the principles of natural justice. The revenue, represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader, countered that the petitioner's reply was indeed mentioned and considered, with the reasons not being accepted by the assessing authority. The revenue also stated that the petitioner had a remedy of appeal and that the period of limitation was available.

Held

The Court held that it was not able to conclude that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice to the extent that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained. The Court noted that the petitioner's reply was referred to on internal page 4 of the assessment order, and it was stated that the reply was not accepted. Further, it was mentioned that the taxpayer's reply was verified, and further findings were given. The Court observed that the petitioner chose to file a reply but did not appear for a personal hearing or avail other opportunities. Given that the reply was considered and orders were passed, the Court found this to be a fit case for the petitioner to be relegated to the appellate remedy. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the application of mind, consideration of all grounds raised in the reply, or the merits of the petitioner's case. The Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal within one week and stated that upon filing, the appeal would be treated as within time, and the appellate authority would pass orders on merits, duly considering all grounds raised. The Court did not express any opinion on the grounds raised by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.11.2025, passed by the second respondent, violates the principles of natural justice due to inadequate consideration of the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, thereby warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their reply was not properly enumerated or addressed in the impugned order. They contended that even when a passing reference was made, the reply was not accepted, and the reasons provided were insufficient. The petitioner further argued that the order failed to provide any substantive response to the contentions raised in their reply, indicating a lack of due application of mind and a violation of natural justice principles. They relied on the general principle that orders violating natural justice are amenable to writ jurisdiction. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that the petitioner's reply was specifically mentioned and considered in the order. They contended that the reasons provided in the reply were not accepted by the assessing authority, and therefore, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The revenue also pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal, and the period of limitation for filing such an appeal was still available.