Manoj Kumar Mewara vs. State Of Jharkhand Through Commissioner Of State Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Mewara, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated January 6, 2023, and a summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07, both pertaining to the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner contended that the adjudication order lacked reasoning and failed to consider his reply. He also argued that no personal hearing was granted, contrary to Section 75(4) of the JGST Act. The petitioner further stated that compensation cess, initially omitted from GSTR-3B, was reflected in the annual return GSTR-9. The respondents produced a detailed adjudication order passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, West Circle, Ranchi, for the same period, asserting that the petitioner's claim of non-application of mind was incorrect. However, the petitioner noted discrepancies in the penalty amount between the order provided by the respondent and the summary.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ application by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order in original dated January 6, 2023, and the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 of the same date. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case. It was open for the petitioner to raise all factual and legal grounds before the appellate authority, which would consider them in accordance with the law. The petitioner's counsel noted that the time period for filing an appeal was set to expire on April 6, 2023. The Court did not make any specific findings on the issues of reasoned order, application of mind, or personal hearing, as the matter was remitted to the appellate authority. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court chose not to delve into the merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated January 6, 2023, and the summary in Form GST DRC-07 dated January 6, 2023, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, are liable to be quashed for lack of reasoning and non-application of mind to the petitioner's reply, in violation of principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the JGST Act. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was devoid of any reasoning, failing to demonstrate application of mind to his reply submitted in Form GST DRC-06. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vrs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & others. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that no personal hearing was granted, which is a violation of Section 75(4) of the JGST Act, citing this Court's judgment in Juhi Industries Pvt. Limited Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others. The petitioner also highlighted that the compensation cess was inadvertently omitted from GSTR-3B but reflected in GSTR-9. Respondents' arguments: The respondents countered that a detailed reasoned order was passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, West Circle, and uploaded on the GSTN portal, refuting the petitioner's claim of non-application of mind. They submitted a copy of this adjudication order.
Sections Cited
Section 75(4), Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order bearing reference no. ZD200123000256E dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure-11 hereto);
AND (b) For quashing the summary of the order contained in Form GST DRC-07 dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure-12 hereto);
AND (c) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, for an appropriate interim order restraining the respondents from resorting to any recovery and further restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-11, the impugned order in original relating to Tax Period July 2017 to March 2018 and the summary of the order under GST DRC-07 for the Tax Period July 2017 to March 2018 (Annexure-12) and submitted that the adjudication order does not contain any reason at all which could show application of mind to the reply furnished by the petitioner at Annexure-9 in Form GST DRC-06. 4. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vrs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, para 47. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has approached this Court under Writ juri iction as the appellate authority under
-2-
Section 107(4) of the JGST Act does not have any power to remand the matter in case the adjudication order is without any reasoning at all. He submits that although an adverse order has been passed entailing huge tax liability with interest, no opportunity of personal hearing has been accorded in terms of Section 75(4) of the JGST Act, which is in teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Juhi Industries Pvt. Limited Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.(T) No. 1991 of 2021 & analogous case, judgment dated 27.06.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire component of compensation cess, which was inadvertently left out in the GSTR-3B return for the period July and August 2017 has been reflected in the annual return of GSTR-9. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents was asked to seek instructions on the previous date 16th March 2023. Today when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the adjudication order passed under Section 73(9) read with Rule 142(1) by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax West Circle, Ranchi which, according to him, relates to the same period July 2017 to March 2018 concerning the Summary of the Order in GST DRC-07 dated 6th January 2023 (Annexure- 11). He submits that the contention of the petitioner that the Summary of the Order does not contain any reason at all showing non-application of mind to the reply furnished by the petitioner is not correct as a detailed reasoned order had been passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, West Circle. He submits that the order was also uploaded on the GSTN Portal. Let the same be taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purported adjudication order dated 6th January 2023 supplied by the learned counsel for the respondent has significant differences from the summary of the order under GST DRC-07 (Annexure-12) so far as the penalty amount is concerned. However, after some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed liberty to approach the appellate authority since the time period for filing of appeal is going to expire on 6th April 2023. He may also be allowed to raise all such grounds of facts and law available to him.
-3-
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner now, we deem it proper to dispose of the writ application with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order in original dated 6th January 2023 and the summary of the order under GST DRC-07 of the same date (Annexure-12). Needless to say, it would be open for the petitioner to raise all such grounds of facts and law as are available to him which the appellate authority shall consider in accordance with law. Let it be made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Shamim/
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.