Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private Limited vs. State Of Rajasthan

CW/11229/2025HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02062786202531 July 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,ANAND SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private Limited, filed a writ petition on July 19, 2025, seeking to quash a show cause notice dated June 27, 2025. The petitioner had submitted a note to the respondents on July 25, 2025, informing them of the petition. Despite this, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass an order on July 29, 2025, as the deadline for replying to the show cause notice was July 28, 2025. The Court acknowledged that the adjudicating authority was not at fault as there was no stay on the proceedings. The petitioner's counsel agreed to reply to the show cause notice.

Held

The Court quashed the order dated July 29, 2025, passed by the adjudicating authority. The Court stated that it would not fault the adjudicating authority for proceeding with the adjudication as there was no stay order in place. However, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's counsel's submission that a reply to the show cause notice would be filed. The Court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within one week. Thereafter, the show cause notice shall be adjudicated upon within two weeks. The petitioner shall be granted a personal hearing, with at least three working days' advance notice communicated to the petitioner's advocate on record. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudicating authority ought to have stayed its hand from passing an order dated July 29, 2025, when a writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated June 27, 2025, was pending before the Court. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority should have refrained from passing the order on July 29, 2025, given that a writ petition had been filed challenging the show cause notice. The filing of the petition and service of notice on the respondents should have prompted the authority to await the Court's decision. Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by the State of Rajasthan and Union of India, argued that the adjudicating authority was justified in proceeding with the adjudication as no stay order was in effect at the time. The petitioner had been granted time to reply to the show cause notice, and the authority acted within its jurisdiction by passing an order when the reply was not filed within the stipulated period.

Sections Cited

None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or relied upon in the judgment text provided.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:29246-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11229/2025 Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Mistry House 9, Preyas Society Gulbai Tekra, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India - 380015 Through Its Authorised Representative Mr. Rajnish Bajpai S/o Upmanyu Bajpai, R/o 6 - D - 17, Mahaveer Nagar 3, Kota, Rajasthan - 324005 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary (Tax), Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 1St Floor, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. 2. The Principal Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur, Ncr Building Statue Circle, C- Scheme, Jaipur-302005 (Raj.). 3. The Joint Commissioner Of Sgst, Commercial Taxes Department, Circle - D, Kota - 324001 (Raj.) 4. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain, Advocate Mr. Daksh Pareek, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Kapil Vyas, Advocate & Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Mehla, Advocate with Ms. Sunita Mehla, Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order 31/07/2025

Prayer in petition is to quash and set aside show cause notice dated 27th June 2025. 2. Instead of replying to show cause notice, this petition came to be filed on 19th July 2025. On 25th July 2025, petitioner submitted a note to respondents stating that this petition has

[2025:RJ-JP:29246-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-11229/2025] been filed and copy of petition was also served. Adjudicating authority instead of staying its hand, proceeded to pass an order dated 29th July 2025. This was because time to reply to show cause notice was given up to 28th July 2025. 3. Certainly, we will not fault the adjudicating authority because there was no stay of adjudication proceedings. Since, counsel for petitioner states that he shall reply to show cause notice, without going into issue as to whether adjudicating authority ought to have stayed its hand, we quash order dated 29th July 2025. 4. Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Advocate General in fairness stated that he would not insist petition to be amended to bring on record this order as well.

Petitioner shall file reply to show cause notice within one week and within two weeks thereafter, show cause notice shall be adjudicated upon. Personal hearing shall be given to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated at least three working days in advance.

Mr. Tarun Jain, counsel states that notice of personal hearing can be served even upon advocate on record Mr. Daksh Pareek and that would amount to be served.

Petition disposed.

We have not expressed any opinion on merits of matter. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT /65

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.