The State Of Tripura And Ors vs. Mb Trading

Held

The Court held that the assertion that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 08.02.2023 was issued by the CGST authorities and not the State tax authorities was not borne out from the notice itself (Annexure-2). The Court noted that there was no dispute on this issue as CGST authorities were not impleaded in the writ petition, and SGST authorities disowned their responsibility for issuing the impugned notice for cancellation of GST registration. Consequently, the Court found that proper and necessary parties, like the CGST authorities, were not impleaded in the writ petition. Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 was recalled. The writ petition was restored to its original file, and the writ petitioner was permitted to implead the CGST authorities. The Court did not make any comments regarding the merits of the case.

Facts

The State of Tripura and others (review petitioners) filed a review petition against an order dated 12.09.2023, which disposed of writ petition No. 564/2023 at the motion stage. The original writ petition challenged a show cause notice dated 08.02.2023 (Form GST REG-17) issued for the cancellation of the respondent's GST registration. The High Court in its previous order found the show cause notice to be vague and directed the respondent No.3 to issue a fresh show cause notice with specific contraventions. The review petitioners contended that the original show cause notice was issued by CGST authorities, who were not impleaded in the writ petition, and that SGST authorities did not issue it. They sought recall of the order and a direction to implead proper parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 08.02.2023, which led to the disposal of the writ petition, was issued by the CGST authorities and not the State tax authorities, and if so, whether this omission warranted a recall of the previous order. Petitioner's arguments: The review petitioners argued that the original show cause notice was issued by CGST authorities, who were not impleaded in the writ petition. They asserted that SGST authorities disowned responsibility for issuing the notice. They further contended that the writ petition was disposed of without impleading the necessary CGST authorities, and therefore, the order directing the issuance of a fresh notice by respondent No.3 (presumably a state authority) was not executable by the State of Tripura or SGST authorities. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (writ petitioner) drew attention to a notice under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, issued by the Superintendent of State Tax, who stated he was empowered under both CGST and SGST Acts. This was used to argue that the impugned show cause notice was also issued by an empowered officer of the State of Tripura.