M/S Jambudwip Exports And Imports Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's submission regarding the breach of principles of natural justice was without merit. The Court found that the petitioner had not denied the issuance of the show cause notice in Form GST-DRC-01A under Section 74(5) of the Act, which required them to show cause and avail the opportunity of personal hearing. A copy of the show cause notice, clearly mentioning the date, time, and place for personal hearing, was produced by the respondent. The Court noted that the issuance of this notice was also mentioned in the impugned assessment order. The petitioner's failure to file the copy of the show cause notice, disclose it in the writ petition, or dispute the finding of its issuance and the affording of a personal hearing indicated concealment of material facts. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in S.P. ChengalVaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others, the Court emphasized that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court and can be summarily thrown out. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jambudwip Exports and Imports Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.2.2022 passed by respondent no. 3. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in gross violation of natural justice, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided after issuing GST-DRC-01A under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. The respondent, however, submitted written instructions stating that the order was passed in accordance with law after due notice and opportunity of hearing. The court noted that a survey was conducted on 11.12.2018, summons were issued, and a notice in Form GST-DRC-01A was issued on 18.12.2021, intimating a tax liability of Rs. 99,61,895.80, interest, and penalty. The petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments. Subsequently, a show cause notice in Form GST-DRC-01 dated 14.1.2022 was issued via email, fixing 14.2.2022 for personal hearing and reply. Despite this, the petitioner neither appeared nor filed a reply, leading to the impugned assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 17.2.2022, passed by respondent no. 3, was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically Section 75(4) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, due to the alleged lack of notice and opportunity of hearing? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the impugned assessment order under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, and that the order was passed straightaway, violating Section 75(4) of the Act and the principles of natural justice, citing the precedent in Writ Tax No. 1029 of 2021 (Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax & 2 Others). Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the impugned order was passed well in accordance with law and after due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent provided written instructions and a copy of the show cause notice as evidence.