M/S S A Projects Th. Tariq Hussain vs. Ut Of J And K Th. Its Commissioner State Tax Department Jammu And Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was premature and therefore dismissed. The notice dated 09.01.2024 was not a demand notice but only a summary of liability. The State Taxes Officer, Circle Doda, had already issued a statutory show cause notice to the petitioner, and the petitioner had filed a reply to it. The Court reasoned that the STO should be permitted to finalize the proceedings initiated by him, ensuring that the petitioner is afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself. The petitioner was granted liberty to participate in the ongoing proceedings before the STO, Circle Doda. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court's decision was based on the prematurity of the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S A Projects, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 09.01.2024 issued by respondent No. 3, which the petitioner termed a demand notice. The respondents, UT of J&K and others, filed objections and submitted that a summary of a show cause notice dated 18.01.2024 was issued by the State Taxes Officer (STO), Circle Doda, requiring the petitioner to reply by 17.02.2024. The petitioner filed a reply on 25.06.2024. The respondents contended that the petitioner filed the instant writ petition, thereby blocking the finalization of proceedings initiated under the J&K GST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017, before the STO could conclude them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 09.01.2024, issued by respondent No. 3, is a demand notice or a summary of liability under the relevant GST provisions. 2. Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature, given that statutory proceedings are ongoing before the State Taxes Officer. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice dated 09.01.2024 was a demand notice, implying it was a final determination of liability. By filing the writ petition, the petitioner sought to challenge this alleged demand directly. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that the notice was merely a summary of liability and not a final demand. They further contended that a statutory show cause notice had been issued, to which the petitioner had responded, and that the writ petition was filed prematurely, obstructing the finalization of the assessment proceedings by the STO.