Maithan Steel And Power Limited vs. The Additional Director General Directorate General Of GST Ingelligence, Kol Zonal Unit And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's request for an opportunity to file a detailed reply to the impugned show cause notice was fair and reasonable. The Court directed the petitioner to file their detailed reply within four weeks from the date of the order. The adjudicating authority, identified as the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner, Kolkata CGST & CX South Commissionerate, was instructed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, along with the petitioner's earlier email dated June 24, 2025 (Annexure P-3), its attachments, and the reply forming Annexure P-5 to the writ petition with its annexures. The adjudicating authority was also mandated to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner before making a final decision. In the event the petitioner did not file a further reply, the previously submitted documents were to be considered as their reply to the show cause notice. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the original show cause notice but focused on procedural fairness.

Facts

The petitioner, Maithan Steel And Power Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice to show cause cum demand dated June 25, 2025, issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit. The petitioner contended that this notice was issued without considering their reply to a pre-show cause notice dated June 19, 2025. Despite a short five-day period, the petitioner submitted a reply with supporting documents via email on June 24, 2025. The respondent GST authorities argued that the writ petition was belated, as the petitioner approached the court approximately three months after receiving the show cause notice, which allowed thirty days for a reply. The petitioner then sought an opportunity to file a detailed reply to the impugned show cause notice and requested that their prior reply to the pre-show cause notice and other submitted documents be considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice to show cause cum demand dated June 25, 2025, issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit, is vitiated due to non-consideration of the petitioner's reply to the pre-show cause notice dated June 19, 2025, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued prematurely and without due consideration of their detailed reply to the pre-show cause notice, which was submitted within the stipulated timeframe along with supporting documents. They emphasized that the notice was issued on the very next day after their reply was sent, indicating a lack of proper review. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent GST authorities contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to its belated filing. They argued that the petitioner received the show cause notice on June 25, 2025, and waited for approximately three months to approach the court, despite the notice providing a thirty-day window for response. They asserted that this delay lacked a valid explanation.