M/S M N Kumar vs. The Additional Chief Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, M/s M.N. Kumar, a proprietary concern, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-adjudication and Form GST DRC-07, both dated 08.12.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Audit - 2.6 (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction or authority of law and violated principles of natural justice, as they were not provided with sufficient opportunity or a personal hearing. The revenue, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, argued that the petition lacked material and should be dismissed. The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted replies to a show-cause notice, but their contentions were not considered in the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order-in-adjudication and Form GST DRC-07 were passed without providing the petitioner with sufficient and reasonable opportunity and without granting a personal hearing, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the various contentions raised by the petitioner in their replies were not considered or appreciated in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the second respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent on 27.02.2024, and liberty was granted to file additional pleadings or documents. All contentions raised by the petitioner, including the issue of jurisdiction, were left open to be decided by the second respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order-in-adjudication and Form GST DRC-07, passed by Respondent No. 2, are without jurisdiction or authority of law, and consequently, violative of principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that they were not afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunity, nor a personal hearing, prior to the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner also questioned the authority/jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 to issue the show-cause notice and proceed with the adjudication. The revenue argued that there was no material in the petition to support the petitioner's claims and that the petition was liable to be dismissed.