M/S Kay Pan Fragrances PVT. LTD. vs. Deputy Commissioner And 4 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kay Pan Fragrances Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging two show cause notices dated January 14, 2021, and March 1, 2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, U.P., Ghaziabad. These notices pertained to the tax period of July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner raised three primary submissions: first, that no function delegation or assignment could arise in favor of the respondent no.1 in the absence of a notification under Sections 2(91) and 5(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; second, that no function delegation had been made under these sections; and third, that the principles of natural justice were violated due to the non-supply of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs). However, during the proceedings, the petitioner withdrew the jurisdictional issue concerning the authority of respondent no.1 to initiate adjudication.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had withdrawn the jurisdictional challenge concerning the authority of respondent no.1 to initiate adjudication proceedings. The primary remaining concern was the violation of natural justice due to the non-supply of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs). The Court found no dispute that a person facing adjudication proceedings must be supplied with all adverse material to enable them to set up a fair defense. The revenue's counsel also agreed that the petitioner's demand for RUDs was reasonable. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to make a fresh application for RUDs within two weeks. Upon receipt of this application, respondent no.1 was directed to provide legible copies of all requested documents within one week. The petitioner would then have a further week to apply for inspection of any other required records, with proper inspection time to be fixed within two weeks thereafter. Following these compliances, the respondents were to proceed with adjudication strictly in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notices issued by respondent no.1 are without jurisdiction due to the absence of a notification under Sections 2(91) and 5(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for delegation or assignment of functions? (Petitioner's contention: No such notification exists, hence no valid delegation. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment). 2. Whether the principles of natural justice have been violated by the non-supply of all Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) to the petitioner? (Petitioner's contention: Violation of natural justice as RUDs were not supplied. Revenue's contention: No objection to supplying RUDs). During the course of arguments, the petitioner conceded the jurisdictional issue related to the authority of respondent no.1, focusing instead on the supply of RUDs.