Saha Marketing vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr

Held

The Court did not grant any relief in the writ petition except to extend the time for the petitioner to file a reply to the impugned show-cause notice. The petitioner has been granted two weeks from the date of the order to file the reply, incorporating all points raised in the writ petition. Upon receipt of the reply, the respondent authority is directed to consider and dispose of it in accordance with the law. This disposal must be through a reasoned and speaking order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative, within four weeks from the date of receiving the reply. Until further orders are passed on the reply, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner. The Court expressly left undecided the substantive issue of whether the notice was correctly issued under both sections. If the petitioner defaults in filing the reply or attending the hearing, the respondent authority is at liberty to proceed as per law. The writ petition stands disposed of with these observations and directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Saha Marketing, has filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause cum demand notice issued by the CGST Authorities. The petitioner contends that the notice is legally unsustainable because it was issued under both Section 73 and Section 74 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argues that according to Section 61(3) of the Act, a notice can only be issued under either Section 73 or Section 74, but not both. The impugned notice is annexure P/8 to the writ petition. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the issuance of the notice and the subsequent filing of this writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether a show-cause cum demand notice issued under the CGST Act can be validly issued under both Section 73 and Section 74 simultaneously, or if it must be issued under one provision exclusively, as per Section 61(3) of the CGST Act? The petitioner argued that the impugned show-cause cum demand notice is not sustainable in law because it was issued under both Section 73 and Section 74 of the CGST Act. The petitioner relied on Section 61(3) of the CGST Act, which, according to the petitioner, mandates that a notice can be issued under either Section 73 or Section 74, but not both. The revenue or State (CGST Authorities) did not record any arguments in the provided judgment text.