Kapil Deo Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Kapil Deo Mishra, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.12.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Prayagraj, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the impugned order failed to comply with the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, as it did not set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision, instead relying on a mere reference to the show cause notice. 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.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 14.12.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Prayagraj, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was unsustainable. The Court found that, similar to the facts in the case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport, the order did not contain any reasons and merely incorporated the indications from the show cause notice by reference. This failure to set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision contravened the mandatory requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act. The Court reasoned that even if no response was filed to the show cause notice, the proper officer was still obligated to pass a self-contained order that explains the basis of the decision. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act must be a speaking order, detailing the facts and reasoning, and cannot merely refer to previous notices. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded back to Respondent No. 3 for a fresh decision after providing the petitioner an opportunity to file a response and be heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 14.12.2023, issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with Section 75(6) of the Act. Petitioner's contention: The impugned order is unsustainable as it lacks the essential requirement of Section 75(6) of the Act, which mandates that the proper officer must set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision in the order. The order merely incorporated the indication made in the show cause notice by reference, making it non-compliant and therefore liable to be set aside. The petitioner relied on the judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Respondent's contention: The respondents' counsel attempted to support the impugned order but did not dispute that the issue raised was covered by the precedent case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport.