M/S Multi Coats Inc. vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court perused the records, including the Supreme Court's order in W.P.[Civil] No.320/2022. The Supreme Court had impressed upon State Governments to consider the implementation of the DIN system, highlighting its advantages. While the Supreme Court recorded a statement that the Karnataka Government had implemented the system, the Court noted that the system was still in the stage of implementation. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner cannot have a grievance if the DIN number was not mentioned in the SCN. The petitioner was directed to file a response to the show cause notice, with liberty to do so. The petition was disposed of with this liberty.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Multi Coats Inc., challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 25.09.2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent) in Form GST DRC-01. The SCN pertains to the financial years 2017-2018. The petitioner's primary contention is that the SCN was issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN). The petitioner relies on a statement made before the Supreme Court regarding the implementation of the DIN system, asserting that the State Government cannot deny its implementation. The Respondent, however, argues that as of the date of the SCN, the system for electronic DIN generation was not yet in force in the State, and therefore, notices were issued without the DIN but with a specific reference number.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2023, issued in Form GST DRC-01 for the financial years 2017-2018, is liable to be quashed for being issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN), thereby lacking jurisdiction? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the Central Board for Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has mandated the implementation of the DIN system. They rely on a statement made before the Supreme Court in W.P.[Civil] No.320/2022, which was disposed of on 18.07.2022, suggesting that the Karnataka Government has implemented this system. Therefore, the issuance of a notice without DIN is illegal and without jurisdiction. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contends that at the time the impugned notice was issued, the State Government had initiated the process to implement the electronic DIN generation system, but it was not yet fully operational or in force. Consequently, notices were issued without the DIN, but with a specific reference number.