Shri Bharat Parihar vs. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pp Office High Court And Ors

Facts

These three writ petitions, filed by Shri Bharat Parihar, Shri Kishan Lal Bunkar, and Sunbright Designers Pvt. Ltd., challenge the provisional attachment of their bank accounts. The attachments were ordered by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Investigation-C, Mumbai, under Section 83 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. For the first two petitioners, show cause notices had been issued and replied to, but the petitioners declined personal hearings. For the third petitioner, Sunbright Designers Pvt. Ltd., it was contended that a copy of the show cause notice was not served, although the revenue claimed it was sent via email. The court was presented with the show cause notice in court.

Held

The Court held that for Shri Bharat Parihar and Shri Kishan Lal Bunkar, since they expressed no interest in a personal hearing, the designated officer could proceed to pass final orders on the show cause notices without a personal hearing, on or before September 15, 2023. All contentions raised by these petitioners would be considered during this adjudication. For Sunbright Designers Pvt. Ltd., the Court accepted the contention that an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice should be granted. The petitioner was to furnish a written reply within one week, and they also indicated no interest in a personal hearing. Consequently, the designated officer was directed to adjudicate this show cause notice, along with the others, by September 15, 2023. Regarding the challenge to the provisional attachment of bank accounts in all petitions, the Court held that these contentions would be kept open to be agitated by the petitioners after the decision on the show cause notices, as the adjudication was scheduled to be completed by September 15, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the designated officer can proceed to pass final orders on the show cause notices without a personal hearing for Shri Bharat Parihar and Shri Kishan Lal Bunkar, given their refusal to attend such hearings? (Question of procedure and adherence to principles of natural justice). 2. Whether the show cause notice issued to Sunbright Designers Pvt. Ltd. was properly served, and if not, should the petitioner be granted an opportunity to respond? 3. Whether the provisional attachment of bank accounts is valid and can be challenged at this stage, or should it be deferred pending adjudication of the show cause notices? Contentions: Petitioner (Shri Bharat Parihar & Shri Kishan Lal Bunkar): Have already stated their response in writing to the show cause notices and are not interested in a personal hearing. Petitioner (Sunbright Designers Pvt. Ltd.): Contended that a copy of the show cause notice was not served. Revenue (State of Maharashtra): Disputed the claim of non-service for Sunbright Designers Pvt. Ltd., stating it was forwarded by email.