M/S Gee Pee Steel Through Its Attorney Holder Mr Sachin Agarwal vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner

Held

The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. It held that the impugned order is appealable. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ application. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue their remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate forum, which is the Appellate Authority. The Court's reasoning was based on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, which is generally preferred over writ jurisdiction for challenging tax orders. The Court's decision to dispose of the writ application with liberty to appeal implies that the petitioner's claims regarding procedural irregularities, such as the lack of a personal hearing, should be raised before the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gee Pee Steel, filed a writ application challenging a show cause notice dated 31.07.2020 and a summary of show cause notice (GST DRC-01) dated 05.08.2020, both issued by the State Tax Officer, Bokaro Circle. These notices proposed a demand of Rs. 8,23,066.20, including interest and penalty, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner also challenged the adjudication order dated 28.09.2020 and its summary (GST DRC-07), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bokaro, which confirmed this demand on the grounds of availing Input Tax Credit from non-existent taxpayers. The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed without providing a personal hearing or considering their reply and documents. Furthermore, a recovery notice dated 22.01.2021, issued under Section 79 of the JGST Act, 2017, by the State Tax Officer, directing payment of the alleged outstanding liability, was also challenged. The petitioner sought re-crediting of their electronic credit ledger, which was debited by Rs. 5,43,636.90.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order, passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and without considering the petitioner's reply and documents, is sustainable in law? 2. Whether the present writ application is maintainable when an appealable remedy is available against the impugned order? The petitioner argued that the demand and assessment were made without providing an opportunity of hearing, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. They contended that the order was illegal, invalid, arbitrary, and untenable due to the lack of a personal hearing and failure to consider their reply and supporting documents. The respondents argued that the impugned order is appealable and that the petitioner should have availed this statutory remedy instead of filing a writ application. They contended that all issues raised by the petitioner could be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority.