M/S Maa Geeta Traders vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax And Another

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was passed after service of soft copies of the show cause notice. The petitioner's contention was primarily that a hard copy was not served, and they claimed to have not fully comprehended the proceedings due to this. The Court found that the other submissions made by the petitioner pointed towards an irregular exercise of jurisdiction rather than an inherent lack of jurisdiction. Given the availability of an adequate remedy of appeal, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to entertain the petitioner's appeal and stay application, if filed within two weeks, on its own merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Geeta Traders, challenged an order dated 07.08.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shahjahanpur, Sector 1, Bareilly, under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax periods of July, September, and October 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without adequate service of the show cause notice, that Form DRC-01A was not issued, and that the show cause notice lacked details of the demand and did not refer to any Relied Upon Documents (RUDs), thus violating the principles of natural justice. The respondent revenue authority argued that the petitioner had an adequate remedy of appeal and that the petitioner's grievance was about the non-service of a physical copy of the notice, not the issuance of any notice at all. The revenue also submitted that any defects pointed out by the petitioner would constitute procedural irregularities, not a lack of inherent jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 07.08.2021, passed under Section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside on the ground of inadequate service of the show cause notice and violation of the principles of natural justice? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was not adequately served, Form DRC-01A was not issued as prescribed under Rule 142(1A) of the U.P. GST Rules, 2017, and the show cause notice lacked specific details of the demand and did not mention any Relied Upon Documents (RUDs). This, they contended, amounted to a violation of natural justice. - Revenue's argument: The revenue contended that the petitioner had an adequate remedy of appeal. They further argued that the petitioner's claim was limited to the non-service of a physical copy of the notice, not the non-issuance of any notice. Any alleged defects were submitted to be procedural irregularities, not a lack of inherent jurisdiction.