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 15.04.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector - 7, Prayagraj, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued 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 merely referencing 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 order dated 15.04.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector - 7, Prayagraj, was unsustainable. This was because, similar to the order in the case of M/s Hari Shanker Transport, the impugned order did not contain any reasons and merely incorporated the indication made in the show cause notice by reference. The Court reiterated the principle laid down in M/s Hari Shanker Transport, which stated that Section 75(6) of the Act requires the proper officer to set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision in the order. Merely referencing previous notices does not make an order self-contained. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 15.04.2024 and remanded the matter back to respondent No.3. 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 order dated 15.04.2024, 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 petitioner contended that the impugned order did 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 the order. The order merely incorporated the indication made in the show cause notice by reference, making it unsustainable. The petitioner relied on the judgment in M/s Hari Shanker Transport Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. 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).