Mr.Shaik Mukthahar Basha vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show-cause notice, but the matter was still pending before Respondent No. 3. The Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition to run parallel proceedings. Instead, in the interest of justice, the Court directed Respondent No. 3/competent authority to decide the pending matter. The decision was to be taken in accordance with law, considering the petitioner's reply, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the order and their reply to the authority within one week of receiving the order. No specific finding was given on the legality or arbitrariness of the show-cause notice itself, as the primary relief granted was a direction for expeditious decision.
Facts
The petitioner, engaged in civil works with Respondent No. 4, filed GST returns based on TDS deductions by Respondent No. 4, as payments for contracts were not made lump sum. Respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), issued a show-cause notice dated 12.01.2022 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, proposing levy of tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner submitted a reply on 31.01.2022 via registered post, but no decision had been taken by Respondent No. 3, leading to the present writ petition seeking to declare the action illegal and arbitrary, and to prevent further action. The revenue contended that the authority would pass appropriate orders after the petitioner's reply.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 3 in issuing the show-cause notice dated 12.01.2022 under Section 74 of the CGST Act is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice was illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice and Article 14. The delay in decision-making after filing the reply was also a point of contention. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that once a show-cause notice was issued and a reply was filed, the authority would proceed to pass appropriate orders.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
WRIT PETITION No.29827 OF 2023
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri V.V.S.C.Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shreyas Reddy, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief: “pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly 3rd respondent in issuing Show cause Notice in GST No 37AMQPS9417NIZU dated 12.01.2022 allegedly exercising the power U/Sec 74 of the CGST Act as illegal arbitrary, violative of Principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to take any action against the petitioner and pass”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner executed various civil works with the respondent No.4 – Municipal Corporation on contract basis. GST returns were filed and since the amounts
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.