Ms Jai Maa Vaishni Enterprises vs. Commissioner State Tax

Held

The Court held that the present Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 415 of 2025. While the specific findings on the violation of Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice are not detailed in this judgment, the operative direction indicates that the Court accepted the petitioner's submission that their case was covered by the precedent. The reasoning is based on the prior decision in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 415 of 2025, which had set aside the order of assessment and remitted the matter to the competent authority to proceed from the stage of the notice. Therefore, the principle derived is that if a Show Cause Notice lacks proper details for a personal hearing, and a similar issue has been addressed by the Court in a previous writ petition, the matter should be remitted back to the authority. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforesaid order, implying a remand.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jai Maa Vaishno Enterprises, filed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 22.08.2024, issued by Respondent no.2. This order imposed a demand for tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 12,87,230.46/- under Section 73(9) of the CGST/UKGST Act. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed ex parte, violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act. Specifically, the Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) had 'NA' in the column for the date, time, and venue of the personal hearing, indicating negligence. The petitioner also noted that their case was similar to Writ Petition (M/B) No. 415 of 2025, which was decided on 29.07.2025, and involved a similar issue concerning Section 75 of the Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order, passed ex parte without a proper opportunity of hearing, violates Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act and the principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice (DRC-01) was negligently issued with 'NA' for the personal hearing details, and the subsequent adjudication order under Section 73(9) was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. This, according to the petitioner, is a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act and the fundamental principles of natural justice. The petitioner further contended that the issue in their petition is covered by the Court's decision in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 415 of 2025, where a similar assessment order was set aside and the matter remitted back. The revenue (State) submitted that the present Writ Petition could be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 415 of 2025.