Arvind Bharti Vidhyalya Samiti vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Arvind Bharti Vidhyalya Samiti, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 21, 2017, and a show cause notice dated September 7, 2020, issued by respondent-RIICO. The show cause notice demanded retention charges, CGST and SGST on these charges, and file processing fees, along with CGST and SGST on the processing fees. The petitioner contended that the demand was illegal and arbitrary. The respondent-RIICO argued that the show cause notice was issued due to the petitioner becoming a defaulter and provided an opportunity to respond within 45 days, stating the writ petition was premature. The petitioner later made a limited prayer for the respondents to consider their reply to the show cause notice and pass a speaking and reasoned order.
Held
The Court directed the respondent-RIICO to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated September 7, 2020, and to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The Court also restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner, including recovery of retention charges and other charges, until the speaking and reasoned order was passed. The petitioner was advised that if aggrieved by the speaking and reasoned order, they could avail of legal remedies available under the law. The Court did not decide on the legality or arbitrariness of the demand itself, as the matter was remanded for a reasoned decision by the authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice dated September 7, 2020, issued by respondent-RIICO demanding retention charges, CGST and SGST on retention charges, file processing fee, and CGST & SGST on file processing fee is illegal and arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demand made by the respondents in the show cause notice is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought to quash the show cause notice. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondent-RIICO contended that the show cause notice was issued because the petitioner became a defaulter and that the notice provided the petitioner with an opportunity to show cause against the alleged default within 45 days. They argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was premature against a show cause notice.
Sections Cited
CGST, SGST
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Judgment / Order 09/05/2023
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayers:- “i) By way of appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 21st December 2017 to the extent of retention charges; ii) by way of appropriate writ, order or direction the show cause notice dated 7th September 2020
(2 of 3) [CW-12313/2020] may kindly be quashed and set aside as being illegal and void.”
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have issued the order adverse to the petitioner in the form of show- cause notice dated 07.09.2020, demanding retention charges, CGST and SGST on retention charges, file processing fee and CGST & SGST on filing of processing fee. Counsel further submits that the demand made by the respondents from the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary.
Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Adv. appearing for respondent-RIICO submits that they have issued show-cause notice dated 07.09.2020 in regard to the demand of retention charges, CGST and SGST and file processing fee on becoming of petitioner a defaulter. He further submits that by way of issuing show-cause notice, the petitioner has been granted an opportunity of show cause against the default committed by him. He further submits that by way of this show-cause notice, the petitioner was granted forty five (45) days’ time to file the reply. He submits that in case the petitioner does not file specific reply to the show cause notice, the plot allotted to him shall stand cancelled without further notice or information. Counsel further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable against the show cause notice being premature.
In the rejoinder arguments, counsel for the petitioner made a limited prayer that respondents may be directed to consider the reply submitted by him in response to the show-cause notice dated 07.09.2020 and pass a speaking and reasoned order after considering his reply.
(3 of 3) [CW-12313/2020]
Counsel appearing for the respondents-RIICO agrees to that and submit that the respondent-RIICO will pass the speaking and reasoned order after considering the contentions of the reply to the show cause notice.
In view of the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and the submissions of the counsel for the RIICO, this Court in the interest of justice deems it just and proper to direct the respondent-RIICO to consider the reply (Annexure-R-2/15 submitted along with the application filed under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India) by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 07.09.2020 and pass a speaking and reasoned order. After passing of speaking and reasoned order by the respondent-RIICO, the petitioner if aggrieved may avail legal remedy as available to him in law.
This Court also deems necessary to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner which includes recovery of retention charges and other charges till passing of the speaking and reasoned order.
The writ petition is, disposed of with the observations made above. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /33
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.