M/S Jagjit Enterprises PVT. LTD. Industrial Area Lko. Thru. Its Managing Director Harmeet Mann vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. State Tax U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Jagjit Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.05.2022 passed under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, by the State Tax authority. A show cause notice dated 10.06.2021 was issued to the petitioner for the tax period April, 2018-March, 2019. The notice mentioned a last date for reply as 12.07.2021 but did not specify a date, time, or venue for personal hearing. The petitioner did not submit a reply by the due date but requested extensions. The petitioner uploaded a format on 08.01.2022, requesting an extension and exercising the option for personal hearing without submitting a reply. The time for filing the reply was extended multiple times, but no reply was filed. The writ petition was filed on 21.03.2023, long after the period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act had expired.
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. While the Petitioner had exercised the option for personal hearing, this was done without filing a substantive response to the allegations in the show cause notice. The Court noted that if a reply had been submitted, and in that reply, the Petitioner had raised issues about non-furnishing of documents and also exercised the option for personal hearing, the Court might have interfered. However, in this case, the Petitioner did not submit any reply and merely sought personal hearing. Furthermore, the Court observed that the writ petition was filed on 21.03.2023, which was significantly after the expiry of the period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The period for filing an appeal was 30 days, extendable by one month. The Court concluded that entertaining the petition on alleged grounds of violation of natural justice, when the statutory appellate remedy was time-barred and not availed, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner was denied an opportunity of personal hearing as guaranteed under Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, thereby violating principles of natural justice? The Petitioner argued that despite requesting a personal hearing and indicating this in the uploaded format, the authority proceeded to pass an order without providing a proper opportunity. The Petitioner contended that certain demanded documents were not supplied, which prevented them from filing a proper reply. The Revenue (State) argued that the Petitioner failed to submit any substantive reply to the show cause notice, instead repeatedly seeking extensions and only later requesting a personal hearing without providing any grounds or documents. The Revenue also highlighted that an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 was available and that the writ petition was filed after the statutory period for appeal had expired.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 71 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Jagjit Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area Lko. Thru. Its Managing Director Harmeet Mann Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. State Tax U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. On 29.03.2023 we had passed the following order: "Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted ten days' time to seek instructions whether opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner under Section 74 of the G.S.T. Act, 2017. List this case on 10.04.2023, as fresh." Learned Additional C.S.C. does not have instructions, we, therefore, proceed to hear the matter. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record what we find is that a show cause notice dated 10.06.2021 was issued to the petitioner for the tax period April, 2018-March, 2019 u/s 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. In the said notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner may appear before the said undersigned for personal hearing either in person or through authorized representative for representing its case on the date, time and venue if mentioned in table below. In the table mentioned in the show cause notice, last date for submission of reply was given as 12 July, 2021 but no date, time or venue mentioned for personal hearing. The petitioner admittedly did not submit any reply by 12th July, 2021 instead as pointed out by the petitioner's counsel on 10th July, 2021 a request was made for extension of time for submitting the reply. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that ultimately on 8th January, 2022, petitioner uploaded the format under the heading reply to the show cause notice, wherein he did not submit any reply but requested for extension of the time limit for responding to the show cause notice. The option for personal hearing was also exercised by ticking yes against Serial No.7 of the format. However, this was done only on 8th January, 2022. The final order dated 21.05.2022 was passed u/s 74 of the GST Act, 2017 against which an appeal is maintainable u/s 107 of the aforesaid Act, 2017. We find that time for filing reply was extended for the petitioner firstly till 28th December, 2021 but no reply was submitted, thereafter, it was again extended on the request of the petitioner till 20th April, 2022, but no reply was submitted by the petitioner. In the interregnum, on 8th January, 2022 without submitting any reply, he had sought personal hearing. Petitioner's counsel says that certain documents were being demanded by him which were not supplied. If it is so, then all this can be seen in appeal u/s 107. We could understand if a reply was submitted by the petitioner and in such reply the petitioner took the plea about non- furnishing of certain documents and at the same time exercised his option for personal hearing, which is referable to Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017. In such a case, of-course we may have interfered but we see no reason to interfere at the behest of petitioner, who did not submit any reply but sought personal hearing. None of decisions annexed with the petition apply to the facts of this case. However, at this stage, Shri Rohit Shukla informed that against the order dated 21.05.2022 passed u/s 74 of the Act, 2017, the appeal could have been filed within a period of 30 days, which was extendable for one month and no more. We find that this petition has been filed only on 21st March, 2023, meaning thereby the period for preferring the appeal had expired much prior to filing of this petition. Therefore, now we understand why the anxiety of the petitioner that this petition should be entertained on alleged grounds of violation of principles of natural justice instead of being relegated to the remedy of appeal. It is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. We, therefore, decline to exercise our extra-ordinary discretionary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.4.2023 Ashutosh Pandey ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.