M/S.Srinivasa Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises, received a show cause notice (SCN) dated November 29, 2024, from the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Jubilee Hills-4 Circle, Hyderabad. This SCN, along with an attachment, initiated proceedings for the tax period 2020-21 under the SGST/CGST Acts, 2017. The petitioner contended that this was the third round of proceedings for the same tax period. Previously, after issuing an SCN, the authority had dropped the proposals vide an order dated December 15, 2023. The petitioner also noted that the impugned SCN was issued without Form GST DRC-01A as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules 2017, lacked the officer's signature, and did not have a Document Identification Number (DIN). The petitioner sought to quash this SCN, deeming it arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

Held

The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, observed that the best course of action available to the petitioner was to file an objection/reply to the impugned notice. The Court directed the petitioner to apprise the authority that proceedings for the aforesaid tax period (2020-21) were already dropped on December 15, 2023. The Court expressed confidence that if such an objection/reply is filed, the authorities would consider it while taking a final decision. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of with this observation. The Court did not decide on the validity or legality of the show cause notice itself, leaving the substantive issues to be addressed by the petitioner through their reply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of a fresh show cause notice for the tax period 2020-21 by the 1st Respondent, for which proceedings were already dropped vide an order dated December 15, 2023, is arbitrary and without jurisdiction, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the SGST/CGST Acts, 2017? 2. Whether the impugned show cause notice dated November 29, 2024, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, including the absence of Form GST DRC-01A, officer's signature, and DIN, as stipulated under the SGST/CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the current SCN was issued for the same tax period (2020-21) and for the same subject matter for which proceedings had already been concluded and dropped by the same authority on December 15, 2023. They contended that initiating fresh proceedings without any new material or justification was arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the provisions of the SGST/CGST Acts, 2017, and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted procedural lapses, including the absence of Form GST DRC-01A, signature, and DIN, rendering the notice void. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.