M/S Deepak Agro Industries vs. The State Of Hp And Others

Held

The Court held that Respondent No. 3 committed a mistake by treating the deposit as voluntary and concluding the notice accordingly. The Court found that the matter was required to be adjudicated on merit by Respondent No. 3, especially since the petitioner had filed a detailed reply along with supporting documents. The Court noted that the petitioner had explicitly requested time to file a detailed reply and had deposited the demanded amount under protest. The Court reasoned that the intimation in Form GST DRC-05 and the subsequent order of the Appellate Authority were passed without considering the petitioner's detailed reply and the documents filed therewith, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that a deposit made under protest, accompanied by a request for time to file a detailed reply and the subsequent filing of such a reply, necessitates adjudication on merits by the Adjudicating Authority, rather than a summary conclusion based on the deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Deepak Agro Industries, approached the High Court seeking to quash an intimation in Form GST DRC-05 dated 19.12.2023, issued by Respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Taxes and Excise. This intimation was issued following a notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.09.2023, demanding GST & IGST amounting to Rs. 18,58,538/-. The petitioner responded by depositing the demanded amount under protest and requesting time to file a detailed reply. A detailed reply was filed on 30.11.2023. However, the Assistant Commissioner issued Form GST DRC-05, treating the deposit as voluntary and concluding the proceedings. The petitioner's appeal to the Appellate Authority also resulted in an order dated 22.07.2025, which found that once tax and interest are paid, there is no scope for decision by the Adjudicating Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the intimation in Form GST DRC-05 dated 19.12.2023, issued by Respondent No. 3, is without jurisdiction and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the deposit was made under protest and a detailed reply was filed, which was not adjudicated upon before the proceedings were concluded. The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner erred by treating the deposit as voluntary and concluding the notice without a proper adjudication on merits. The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contentions regarding the procedural lapses.