M/S Jain Cement Udyog (Through Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain ) vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Jain Cement Udyog, challenged a series of notices and an order issued by Respondent No. 2. These included Form GST ASMT-10 dated December 16, 2020, Form GST DRC-01 dated December 30, 2020, and Form DRC-07 dated February 1, 2021. The Petitioner contended that ASMT-10 was issued without mandatory discrepancies, no pre-show cause notice consultation occurred as required by Rule 142(1A), the DRC-01 was never served, and no personal hearing was granted before the DRC-07 order was passed, violating natural justice. The Revenue's submission indicated that specific allegations were mentioned in the notices and that the Petitioner had not filed a reply to the show cause notice or an appeal against the order.

Held

The Court noted that the Petitioner had not filed a reply to the show cause notice nor an appeal against the impugned order. However, considering the Petitioner's submission that they may be given an opportunity to file an appeal, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The Petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal with the appropriate authority within four weeks. The Court clarified that the appeal would not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation if filed within the stipulated period. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open. The Court did not make any specific findings on the validity of the notices or the violation of natural justice, deferring these to the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether Form GST ASMT-10 dated December 16, 2020, was validly issued without mentioning specific discrepancies, contrary to Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, was conducted? 3. Whether the show cause notice (DRC-01) dated December 30, 2020, was duly served upon the Petitioner? 4. Whether the order in Form DRC-07 dated February 1, 2021, passed without granting a personal hearing, violates principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that ASMT-10 lacked mandatory discrepancies, pre-show cause notice consultation was absent, DRC-01 was not served, and the final order DRC-07 was passed without a personal hearing, thus violating natural justice. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue stated that the allegations were detailed in the notices and that the Petitioner had not filed a reply to the show cause notice or an appeal against the impugned order.