Shri Kishan Lal Bunkar 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. In two petitions (WP Nos. 9277/2023 and 9291/2023), show cause notices had been issued and replied to by the petitioners, but the petitioners indicated they were not interested in a personal hearing. In the third petition (WP No. 9294/2023), the petitioner contended that while an intimation of a show cause notice was received, a copy of the notice itself was not served. The revenue disputed this, stating it was sent via email.

Held

The Court held that in Writ Petition Nos. 9277 of 2023 and 9291 of 2023, since the petitioners expressed no interest in a personal hearing, the designated officer could proceed to pass final orders on the show cause notices without one. The Court directed the designated officer to conclude the adjudication of these show cause notices by September 15, 2023. For Writ Petition No. 9294 of 2023, the Court accepted the petitioner's contention that an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice should be granted. The petitioner was directed to furnish a 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. In all petitions, the Court kept open all contentions regarding the provisional attachment of bank accounts to be agitated by the petitioners after the adjudication of the show cause notices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the designated officer can proceed to pass final orders on the show cause notices in WP Nos. 9277/2023 and 9291/2023 without a personal hearing, given the petitioners' stated disinterest in such a hearing? (Question of procedure and statutory interpretation) 2. Whether the petitioner in WP No. 9294/2023 should be granted an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, considering their claim of non-service of the notice? Petitioner's Arguments: - In WP Nos. 9277/2023 and 9291/2023, the petitioners have already stated all their contentions in their replies to the show cause notices and are not interested in a personal hearing. - In WP No. 9294/2023, the petitioner was not served with a copy of the show cause notice, despite receiving an intimation. Revenue's Arguments: - In WP Nos. 9277/2023 and 9291/2023, the petitioners have refused to appear for scheduled personal hearings. - In WP No. 9294/2023, the show cause notice was forwarded by email, disputing the petitioner's claim of non-service.