Sunbright Designers PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Facts

These three writ petitions challenge the provisional attachment of the petitioners' bank accounts, 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. The petitioners stated they were not interested in a personal hearing, having already submitted their responses. In the third petition (WP No. 9294/2023), the petitioner, Sunbright Designers Pvt. Ltd., contended that while an intimation of a show cause notice was received, the notice itself was not served. The revenue disputed this, stating it was sent via email. The court directed that the show cause notices in all cases be adjudicated by September 15, 2023.

Held

The Court held that for Writ Petitions No. 9277 of 2023 and 9291 of 2023, since the petitioners had stated they were not interested in a personal hearing and had already provided their responses in writing, the designated officer was free to proceed and pass final orders on the show cause notices without a personal hearing. All contentions raised by the petitioners would be considered during this adjudication. 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 to furnish a reply within one week, and also indicated no interest in a personal hearing. In all cases, the Court directed that the designated officer should adjudicate the respective show cause notices on or before September 15, 2023. The Court explicitly kept open all contentions of the petitioners regarding the provisional attachment of their bank accounts to be agitated 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 without a personal hearing, given the petitioners' stated lack of interest in such hearings (relevant to WP Nos. 9277/2023 and 9291/2023)? 2. Whether the show cause notice was properly served on Sunbright Designers Pvt. Ltd. (relevant to WP No. 9294/2023)? Petitioner's arguments: In WP Nos. 9277/2023 and 9291/2023, the petitioners argued that their written replies to the show cause notices sufficiently conveyed their stance, and they did not require a personal hearing. In WP No. 9294/2023, the petitioner argued that the show cause notice was not actually served, despite an intimation being sent. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, through its counsel, contended that the petitioners in WP Nos. 9277/2023 and 9291/2023 had refused to appear for scheduled personal hearings. For WP No. 9294/2023, the revenue disputed the claim of non-service, stating the notice was forwarded by email.