M/S Simla Gomti Pan Products PVT. LTD.Thru. Its Director Megh Raj Singh vs. Commissioner Of State Tax U.P. Commissioner Office Lko.

Held

The Court noted the Petitioner's contention that the communication dated May 11, 2024, was posted on the wrong section of the portal. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the State GST Act. Considering these submissions, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the Petitioner liberty to file an appeal within 10 days from the date of the order. The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed, it shall be considered on its merits and decided expeditiously. Additionally, the Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the office of the opposite party to procure a copy of the SIB report and other relevant documents relied upon in passing the impugned order. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the Petitioner's claim regarding the denial of natural justice or the validity of the communication, but rather provided a procedural route for redressal.

Facts

M/s Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging orders for assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23 (specifically April 1, 2022, to July 30, 2022). The Petitioner contended that adjudication proceedings were conducted ex-parte because they were not provided with the SIB report, despite a specific request on April 30, 2024. The Petitioner argued that the denial of relevant documents and an effective opportunity to be heard prejudiced their case. The impugned order stated that the Petitioner was informed via a letter dated May 11, 2024, on the portal to collect the SIB report and submit a reply by June 10, 2024. However, the Petitioner claimed this letter was posted in the wrong section of the portal, making it inaccessible.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to present their case due to the non-supply of the SIB report and supporting documents, thereby vitiating the ex-parte adjudication orders under Section 75 of the CGST Act/UP GST Act? 2. Whether the Petitioner's claim that the communication regarding the SIB report and reply submission was posted on the wrong section of the portal, rendering it inaccessible, is valid? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the adjudication proceedings were ex-parte and vitiated because they were not supplied with the SIB report, which was specifically requested. They claimed to be handicapped and prejudiced by the non-provision of necessary documents for replying to the show cause notice. The Petitioner also contended that the communication dated May 11, 2024, was posted on the wrong section of the portal, preventing them from seeing it and thus denying them an effective opportunity to be heard. Respondent's Arguments: The State-respondent pointed out that the Petitioner had not explicitly stated that the adjournment letter dated May 11, 2024, informing them to approach the office to obtain the SIB report and other documents, was posted on the wrong portal. They also highlighted that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the State GST Act.