M/S. New Morning Star Travels vs. The Joint Commissioner (St) No 2 Division

Held

The Court held that entertaining a writ petition questioning the very issuance of a show cause notice is not appropriate, especially when the petitioner has already submitted multiple explanations to the said notice. The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted explanations on 09.11.2021, 01.12.2021, 14.12.2021, and 22.12.2021, and the matter was fixed for personal hearing on the last date. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass orders in accordance with the law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs were awarded. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging a show cause notice is generally not maintainable when the assessee has participated in the proceedings by submitting explanations and the matter is pending adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 05.11.2021, issued by the 1st respondent under Section 74(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the notice was irregular because the procedure laid down under Section 61 of the Act read with Rule 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, was not followed prior to its issuance. The revenue, represented by the Government Pleader, opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had submitted multiple explanations to the show cause notice on 09.11.2021, 01.12.2021, 14.12.2021, and 22.12.2021, which were under consideration. The revenue argued that since explanations were submitted, the writ petition should not be entertained.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is irregular for non-compliance with the procedure stipulated in Section 61 of the Act read with Rule 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was illegal and incorrect because the mandatory procedure under Section 61 of the Act and Rule 99 of the Rules, which requires an opportunity to be heard before issuing a notice under Section 74(1), was not followed. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in Section 61 and Rule 99. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the writ petition should not be entertained as the petitioner had already submitted several explanations to the show cause notice, and these explanations were under consideration by the respondent. The revenue argued that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings by submitting these explanations.