M/S S.A. Cement Store vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S.A. Cement Store, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 24.05.2024 and an ex parte demand order dated 28.08.2024. These were passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction Saharanpur, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the impugned order failed to meet the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act. The respondents' counsel did not dispute that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the Court in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. The ex parte order in the present case, similar to the one in the cited judgment, allegedly lacked reasoning and incorporated the show cause notice by reference.

Held

The Court held that the ex parte demand order dated 28.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction Saharanpur, was unsustainable. Following the precedent set in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P., the Court found that the order failed to comply with Section 75(6) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This section requires the proper officer to set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision in the order. The Court observed that, similar to the case in the cited judgment, the ex parte order in the present matter did not contain any independent reasoning and merely incorporated the show cause notice by reference. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, even if ex parte, must be a self-contained document setting out the facts and the basis of the decision, and a mere reference to previous notices is insufficient. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the ex parte order dated 28.08.2024 and remanded the matter back to the respondent No.2. The respondent was directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice within four weeks and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte demand order dated 28.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction Saharanpur, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is sustainable in light of Section 75(6) of the Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order does not fulfill the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which mandates that the proper officer shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision in his order. They contended that the order was passed ex parte and merely incorporated the show cause notice by reference, lacking independent reasoning. They relied on the judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. to support their claim that such an order should be quashed and the matter remanded. Respondent's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents attempted to support the impugned order but did not dispute that the issue raised by the petitioner was covered by the judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport (supra).