Armour Security Housekeeping And Placement Services Agency vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State G S T Commissionerate Dehradun
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, a GST registration holder, failed to file returns. A show cause notice was issued, followed by an order dated 04.10.2021. The petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.10.2021 by way of a writ petition. It is not disputed that Rule 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, mandates the issuance of an electronic notice in form GSTR-3A to a registered person who fails to furnish returns under Sections 39, 44, 45, or 52. The State's counsel admitted that no such electronic notice was issued; instead, a postal notice was sent.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 04.10.2021 was passed without complying with the mandatory procedure stipulated under Rule 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court noted the admission by the State's counsel that no electronic notice in form GSTR-3A was issued, and only a postal notice was sent. The Court reiterated the settled principle of law that if an enactment or legislation prescribes a particular procedure, it must be followed. Therefore, the impugned order, having been passed without issuing the mandatory electronic notice, was vitiated by procedural illegality. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the concerned Authority to comply with Rule 68 of the Rules and reconsider the petitioner's matter in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 04.10.2021 is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, specifically the requirement to issue an electronic notice in form GSTR-3A to a non-filer of returns. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without adhering to the prescribed procedure under Rule 68, as no electronic notice in form GSTR-3A was issued. Instead, a postal notice was sent, which is not in compliance with the statutory requirement. The petitioner relied on the principle that if a legislation prescribes a particular procedure, it must be followed. Revenue's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the State admitted that no electronic notice, as envisaged in Rule 68, was issued and that only a postal notice was sent. The State did not present any counter-argument against the petitioner's claim regarding procedural non-compliance.
Sections Cited
Rule 68, Section 39, Section 44, Section 45, Section 52
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No.2285 of 2022 Shri S.K.Mishra, J.
Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the writ applicant.
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction for setting aside the order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure No.2).
Petitioner is a GST registration holder. He defaulted in filing of returns. For that reason a show cause notice was issued to him. After hearing the petitioner, the Authority has passed the impugned order. It was assailed in an appeal and the appeal was also dismissed. It is not disputed that Rule 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides for notice to the non filers of returns – a notice in form GSTR – 3A shall be issued electronically to a registered person who fails to furnish return under Section 39 or Section 44 or Section 45 or Section 52. It is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the State that in fact, no notice, as envisaged in Rule 68 of the Rules, was issued, rather a postal notice (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) was sent.
It is a settled principle of law that if enactment or legislation prescribes a particular procedure to conduct business
affairs, then it has to be followed. In this case, impugned order has been passed without issuing electronic notice to the petitioner but by issuing registered postal notice.
In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure-2) is hereby quashed. The Authority concerned is directed to comply with Rule 68 of the aforesaid Rules and reconsider the matter of the petitioner, in accordance with law.
(S.K.Mishra, J.)
2022
(Grant urgent copy of this order as per Rules)
Kaushal
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.