M/S Jyoti Stone Works (A Proprietorship Concern) Thro Its Proprietor Namely Jagdish Prasad Narsaria vs. State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary, Department Of State Tax

Held

The Court held that the respondent no. 3 (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle) should proceed by taking follow-up action in accordance with the law. This decision was based on the petitioner's submission that they had already responded to the Notice in Form GST ASMT 10 and the revenue's lack of objection to the petitioner's request for a directive. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST ASMT 10 notice itself or the petitioner's response. The ratio decidendi is that when a taxpayer has responded to a notice and the revenue does not object to a direction for follow-up action, the Court will direct the authority to proceed as per law. The operative direction is to the respondent no. 3 to take follow-up action. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jyoti Stone Works, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The petition sought to quash a Notice in Form GST ASMT 10. The petitioner argued that they had already filed a response to this notice and requested a direction for the concerned authority to take follow-up action. The respondents, represented by the learned AC to the Advocate General, raised no objection to this request. The tax period and the specific amount in dispute are not mentioned in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of the GST ASMT 10 notice and the petitioner's subsequent response.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a direction to the competent authority to take follow-up action on a Notice in Form GST ASMT 10, to which the petitioner has already filed a response, under Section 61 of the GST Act or any other relevant provision? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that since they have already filed their response to the Notice in Form GST ASMT 10, the competent authority should be directed to proceed with the follow-up action as per the provisions of Section 61 of the GST Act or any other applicable law. They sought a judicial directive for the authority to act on their submitted response. Revenue's Argument: The learned AC to the learned Advocate General for the respondents raised no objection to the petitioner's prayer for a direction to the competent authority to take follow-up action.