M/S Radiant Cash Management Services LTD. Thru. Authorized Signatory vs. Deputy Commissioner , State Tax Lko.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's primary grievance was the non-consideration of its earlier reply, wherein it had pointed out that the notice issued contained facts and figures relating to M/s Paridhee Creation, an entity with which the petitioner had no association. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner could not be expected to respond to discrepancies pertaining to another company. To serve the interest of justice, the Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's reply concerning its own company and any identified mismatches or deficiencies. The petitioner was instructed to submit a detailed reply to the notice under Section 73 within one week, focusing solely on its own returns and not on the case of M/s Paridhee Creation. The petitioner was also permitted to deny any liability concerning the notice addressed to M/s Paridhee Creation. The respondent was directed to make an informed decision after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner's representative, potentially through video conferencing, within four weeks thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the demand itself but focused on ensuring a proper procedural consideration of the petitioner's case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd., a company engaged in cash logistics, received a notice under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, dated May 28, 2024, proposing a demand of Rs. 11,79,948/- along with Rs. 8,62,542/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,17,994/- for the period April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner contended that this notice was issued without application of mind as it reproduced a table of discrepancies pertaining to another entity, M/s Paridhee Creation, with a different GSTIN. The petitioner had previously responded to a notice dated February 17, 2023, regarding discrepancies between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, and had also sought an extension to reply to the impugned notice. The respondent argued that the petitioner's explanation was unsatisfactory and a notice under Section 73 was issued, with an opportunity for the petitioner to submit a detailed reply and appear for a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, dated May 28, 2024, is vitiated by non-application of mind due to the inclusion of details pertaining to M/s Paridhee Creation, with whom the petitioner has no connection? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 73 was issued without proper application of mind because it contained a table of discrepancies that belonged to M/s Paridhee Creation, a separate entity. The petitioner asserted that it could not possibly submit a reply concerning mismatches in the returns filed by M/s Paridhee Creation, as it is a distinct company. They relied on the fact that the notice itself referenced the other company's details. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Lucknow, stated that a notice under Section 61 was issued on March 27, 2024, and subsequently, a notice under Section 73 was issued on May 28, 2024, after considering the petitioner's explanation to be unsatisfactory. The respondent also noted that the petitioner had been granted an extension to submit its reply and that there was an opportunity for a personal hearing.