Sayampu Ravi Kumar vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)-5

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.06.2024, Summary in Form GST DRC-07, and proceedings were to be set aside. This decision was based on the parties' fair submission that the impugned order lacked any physical or digital signature. The Court noted that it had previously set aside a similar order and show cause notice for this very reason in W.P.No.8014 of 2024. The parties agreed to dispose of the present matter in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.8014 of 2024. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The Court reserved liberty to the Department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law from the appropriate stage. The petitioner was also granted liberty to take all possible defenses and objections in accordance with law, particularly if put to notice by the competent authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Sayampu Ravi Kumar, a contractor, challenged an order dated 30.06.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (ST)-5. This order, along with a Summary in Form GST DRC-07 and related proceedings, was for the tax period January to March 2022. The impugned action levied CGST/SGST and penalty totaling Rs. 23,82,204/- under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without granting a personal hearing, lacked authorization, a Document Identification Number, and was not signed. The petitioner also argued it was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. An interlocutory application sought suspension of the order's operation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 30.06.2024, Summary in Form GST DRC-07, and proceedings for the tax period January to March 2022, levying CGST/SGST and penalty totaling Rs. 23,82,204/- under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, are arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions, specifically Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India, due to lack of personal hearing, authorization, Document Identification Number, and signature. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and proceedings were passed without granting an opportunity for a personal hearing, were not authorized, lacked a Document Identification Number, and were not signed. This, according to the petitioner, rendered the action arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of natural justice principles and constitutional rights. The petitioner relied on the fact that a similar order was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.8014 of 2024. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contentions. However, they were represented and participated in the proceedings.