Ms J J Enterprises Through Its Partner Ashish Khanna vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court held that the issue at hand was required to be addressed at the level of the respondent no. 2, the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax, in the first instance. The Court noted that the impugned notice dated May 4, 2018, reflected discrepancies in the petitioner's return. Both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 expressed readiness to cooperate in the inquiry. The Court directed the respondent no. 2 to endeavor to conclude the inquiry within a reasonable time, preferably 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that matters requiring factual adjudication and inquiry by the statutory authority should be allowed to proceed before such authorities, and High Courts should generally not interfere prematurely, especially when parties are willing to cooperate. The operative direction was for the inquiry to be concluded within a specified timeframe, with the petition being disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. J.J. Enterprises, approached the Jharkhand High Court challenging a notice dated May 4, 2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax under the GST Act, Jamshedpur Circle. The notice highlighted a discrepancy where an amount of Rs. 20,31,000 was not reflected in the return filed by respondent no. 3, Bharti Airtel Limited. The petitioner had previously filed a reply on May 12, 2018, stating that while GST had been collected from them, it was not reflected in respondent no. 3's return due to an error on their part. The petitioner also requested a meeting with respondent no. 3. The State contended that the writ petition was premature as adjudication was pending. Respondent no. 3 explained that due to the petitioner's GST registration number not being provided in July 2017, returns were deposited in a Console B2C Project and uploaded later with a prefix due to invoice duplicity issues under Section 39 of the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court when the adjudication of the impugned notice by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax is still pending, as per Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent no. 2 to decide the issue based on the petitioner's reply and requested a meeting with respondent no. 3. The petitioner also sought a timeline for the conclusion of the inquiry. Revenue/State's argument: The State argued that the writ petition was premature because the adjudication on the impugned notice had not yet been made. They contended that the petitioner should have appeared before the authority instead of approaching the High Court. The State submitted that the matter would be adjudicated by the competent authority, and both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 were required to cooperate with the inquiry and provide relevant documents.