M/S Prakash Paint Thro Its Proprietor Om Prakash Saw vs. State Of Jharkhand Thro Secretary Cum Commissioner Of State Tax

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Prakash Paint, filed a writ petition challenging an order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated December 28, 2023, passed by the State Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed in violation of natural justice. They claimed to have received a show-cause notice (FORM GST DRC-1 under section 73(1) of the JGST Act) for financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 via email on December 27, 2023. The petitioner claims to have sent a reply on December 29, 2023, but the impugned order imposing tax, interest, and penalty of Rs. 1,72,073.67 was passed on December 28, 2023, before the statutory 15-day period for response could expire. The petitioner argued they were not given a fair opportunity to present their defense.

Held

The Court held that a writ petition is generally not entertained against a show-cause notice or an order that is appealable under the statutory regime, as such proceedings are considered premature. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in "Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana," which emphasizes that a writ petition lies when a right is infringed, and a mere show-cause notice or an appealable order does not typically infringe a right. The Court noted that the impugned order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the State Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi, is appealable under Section 107 of the JGST Act. While acknowledging that in rare exceptional cases, a High Court can quash a show-cause notice or charge-sheet if it is wholly without jurisdiction or illegal, the Court found no such grounds here. The Court also observed that the petitioner's claim of receiving the show-cause notice on December 27, 2023, was contradicted by their own affirmation that the notice was mailed on December 16, 2023. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it on the ground that no case was made out for interference, directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the State Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi, is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was passed in violation of natural justice, specifically by not affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice dated December 13, 2023, and before the expiry of the 15-day period stipulated for response? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed prematurely, before the expiry of the 15-day period, thus denying them a fair opportunity to present their defense. They relied on the principle that personal hearing is necessary before imposing additional demands, citing "CCE v. I.T.C. Ltd." and "Raymond Limited v. Union of India." They also contended that the order was passed in violation of natural justice. Revenue's arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments. However, the Court's reasoning suggests a reliance on the principle that writ petitions are generally not entertained against show-cause notices or orders that are appealable under the statutory regime, citing "Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana."