M/S Jyoti Stone Works (A Proprietorship Concern) Thro Its Proprietor Namely Jagdish Prasad Narsaria vs. State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary, Department Of State Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Jyoti Stone Works, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging a notice in Form GST ASMT 10, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, on May 3, 2024. The notice, issued under Section 61 of the JGST Act read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, alleged discrepancies between the quantity of stone/chips mined and dispatched, as per data from the mining department, and the outward taxable supply declared in the petitioner's GSTR 3B. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction and in excess of the Assessing Officer's powers for scrutiny of returns. The petitioner had already filed a detailed reply to the notice on June 3, 2024, requesting the notice be dropped.
Held
The Court held that since the petitioner had furnished a response to the show-cause notice dated May 3, 2024, along with an explanation, no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner at that moment. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a detailed reply on June 3, 2024, in response to the notice dated May 3, 2024, and had requested the notice be dropped. The Court was of the view that the petitioner's response to the alleged discrepancy needed consideration. Therefore, the Court directed the concerned authority to proceed in accordance with law as per the mandate of the JGST Act. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner against the notice dated May 3, 2024, in accordance with law and, depending upon the conclusion, to take follow-up action in view of the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act. The Court did not decide on the merits of the alleged discrepancies.
Key Issues
1. Whether the issuance of Notice in Form GST ASMT 10, dated May 3, 2024, by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, under Section 61 of the JGST Act read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, was without jurisdiction and in excess of the power conferred upon the authority for scrutiny of returns. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the notice was wholly without jurisdiction and in excess of the power conferred upon the respondent-authority regarding scrutiny of returns, as provided under Section 61 of the JGST Act. They contended that there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to issue such a notice, especially since a response had already been filed. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that follow-up action would be taken in pursuance to the statutory provisions under Section 61 of the JGST Act, referencing the contents of the notice dated May 3, 2024.
Sections Cited
Section 61, Rule 99(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 4883 of 2024 M/s. Jyoti Stone Works, ( A Proprietorship Concern), having its works at Mouza Lohanda Bedo, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj, through its Proprietor, namely, Jagdish Prasad Narsaria, aged about 60 years, son of Hari Prasad Narsaria, resident of Savera Vastralay, Chowk Bazar, Sahebganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj, PIN-816190, Jharkhand. .… Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of State Tax, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 8327604. 2. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand), PIN 816109. 3. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand), PIN 816109. 4. State Tax Officer, Sahibganj Circle, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand), PIN 816109. ….. Respondents
--------- CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
: Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
: Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
.
---------
04/ Dated: 05.09.2024
In the instant writ application, petitioner prays for the following relief:- (i) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing/setting aside the Notice contained in Form GST ASMT 10 (Annexure-2), issued vide Reference No. 276 dated 03.05.2024 in alleged exercise of the power under Section 61 of the JGST Act read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, especially because the very issuance of the said Notice is
2
wholly without juri iction and is in excess of the power conferred upon Respondent-authority regarding scrutiny of returns, as provided under Section 61 of the JGST Act.
Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to come out with the notice dated 03.05.2024 which has already been responded. The aforesaid argument has been strengthened by making reference of the provisions as contained in Section 61 of the JGST Act.
Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I appearing for the respondents- State, has submitted by making reference of the contents of the notice dated 03.05.2024 which has been appended as to the writ petition that respondent will take follow-up action in pursuance to the statutory provided under Section 61 of JGST the Act.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of Annexure-2 which is the notice issued on 03.05.2024 by which the petitioner has been asked to explain with respect to the following discrepancies:-
This Court has also considered the detail reply dated 03.06.2024 which was filed by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 03.05.2024, as also the request to drop the notice.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that since response to the show- cause notice dated 03.05.2024 along with explanation has been furnished, as such, at the moment no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Quantity of Stone/Chips mining & dispatch (Data Receive from mining Dept.) (Data in cft) Value of Dispatched Stone chips mining & dispatch @ Rs.30/- per cft (Rate Determined) Outward Taxable supply declared in GSTR 3B Escaped Outward Taxable Supply
1928000 Rs.57840000 Rs. 53359923 Rs. 4480077
3
Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has filed the response to the alleged discrepancy which has been furnished in the show-cause notice dated 03.05.2024 for its consideration, as such respondent is being directed to proceed in accordance with law as per the mandate of the JGST Act.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the explanation as submitted by the petitioner against the notice dated 03.05.2024, in accordance with law and depending upon the conclusion, follow-up action be taken in view of the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Suman-Abhishek/
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.