M/S Harshit Trading vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s Harshit Trading, a taxpayer, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an order dated 23.04.2024 (DIN GST/36ECJPK3752C1ZOI1911). The petitioner sought to set aside this order, arguing it was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 4) issued third-party notices to clients without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or prior notice. The petition also prayed for a direction to Respondent No. 4 not to pass further orders for the financial years 2018-19 or 2019-20 until the court resolves the matter, considering the 53rd GST Council recommendations. An interlocutory application was filed seeking suspension of the impugned order pending disposal of the writ petition.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the arguments presented by the petitioner. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission from the Court to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner intended to approach the appropriate forum for redressal. A letter dated 28.03.2025, seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition, was filed in the Registry. In light of this request, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court granted the liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. No costs were imposed. All pending interlocutory applications were also closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 23.04.2024, passed by Respondent No. 4, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the issuance of third-party notices without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the action of Respondent No. 4 in sending third-party notices to the clients of the petitioner without first giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and without providing notice regarding the same, violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice? (Question of law, concerning constitutional rights and natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and the subsequent third-party notices were passed in violation of natural justice principles, as they were not given an opportunity to be heard or prior notice. They also contended that these actions infringed upon their rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought to rely on the 53rd GST Council recommendations. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.