Mukesh Kumar Singh vs. The Commissioner Jharkhand Goods And Service Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Singh, challenged an order dated March 2, 2021, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No. 2), which was confirmed by another order dated November 4, 2022, also from Respondent No. 2. Additionally, a notice dated April 5, 2024, issued by the State Tax Officer (Respondent No. 3) was challenged. The petitioner contended that these actions were taken without adhering to mandatory procedural requirements under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the judgment. The matter reached the High Court via a writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the orders and notice under challenge were indeed passed in non-compliance with Sections 107(8) and 107(2) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The reasoning was that the respondents failed to adhere to the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in these sections. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition. The operative directions included setting aside the order dated March 2, 2021, the confirmation order dated November 4, 2022, and the notice dated April 5, 2024. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 3, who was directed to issue a fresh notice of hearing to the petitioner, consider any documents the petitioner wished to rely on and file, and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law. The petitioner was also permitted to file all relevant documents, including case law, before Respondent No. 3. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated March 2, 2021, and the subsequent confirmation order dated November 4, 2022, passed by Respondent No. 2, and the notice dated April 5, 2024, issued by Respondent No. 3, are liable to be set aside for non-compliance with Sections 107(8) and 107(2) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedural requirements stipulated in Sections 107(8) and 107(2) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, leading to an invalid action. The State, represented by the learned Additional Advocate General, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding procedural non-compliance.