Kunjal Synergies Private Limited And Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Cx And Ors.

Held

The Court held that it could not appreciate the sufficiency of the reasons recorded in the impugned show-cause notice at this stage, as the petitioner still had an ample opportunity to file a reply/objection to it, which they had not yet availed. The Court disposed of the writ petition by extending the time for the petitioner to file their reply to the show-cause notice dated September 18, 2023. The petitioner was granted fifteen days from the date of the order to file their reply, and all points raised in the writ petition were to be included. Upon receipt of the reply, the respondent authority was directed to consider it, pass a reasoned and speaking order, and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative within four weeks of receiving the reply. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's original grievance regarding the non-consideration of the pre-show-cause notice reply.

Facts

The petitioner, Kunjal Synergies Private Limited, challenged a show-cause cum demand notice dated September 18, 2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, Park Street Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate. The petitioner contended that their reply to a pre-show-cause notice was not adequately considered or discussed before the impugned notice was issued. The Court noted that the petitioner was not denied an opportunity to file objections or a personal hearing. However, the petitioner had not yet filed a reply to the impugned show-cause notice, despite having ample opportunity to do so.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned show-cause cum demand notice dated September 18, 2023, is vitiated due to the alleged non-consideration of the petitioner's pre-show-cause notice reply, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner failed to properly consider and discuss their reply to the pre-show-cause notice when issuing the impugned show-cause notice. This, they contended, rendered the subsequent notice procedurally flawed. Revenue's arguments: The respondent revenue authority did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's observation that the petitioner still had ample opportunity to file a reply to the impugned show-cause notice implies a contention that the process was not complete and the petitioner had not exhausted available remedies.