Ms Black Stone Works Through Its Partner Namely Ved Prakash Khudania vs. State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Deptt Of State Tax

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of its previous order dated August 28, 2024, passed in W.P.(T) No.4733 of 2024. In that prior order, the Court had disposed of a similar writ petition by giving the petitioner liberty to respond to the second show-cause notice within two weeks. The authority concerned was directed to consider the petitioner's response in accordance with law and take follow-up action as per the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act. The present judgment does not independently analyze the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the GST ASMT 10 notice but adopts the procedural disposal from the earlier case. No specific finding was recorded on the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner in this particular judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Black Stone Works, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging a Notice in Form GST ASMT 10, issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, on May 3, 2024. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers conferred under Section 61 of the JGST Act read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, concerning the scrutiny of returns. The petitioner argued that a similar matter had been disposed of by the High Court on August 28, 2024, in W.P.(T) No.4733 of 2024, and the facts of the present case were squarely covered by that order. The State's counsel did not dispute this fact.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Notice in Form GST ASMT 10, issued under Section 61 of the JGST Act read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, was issued without jurisdiction and in excess of the authority's power regarding the scrutiny of returns? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the notice was wholly without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers conferred upon the respondent-authority for scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of the JGST Act. They relied on a previous order of the High Court in W.P.(T) No.4733 of 2024, stating that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by that order. Revenue's Argument: The State's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of the previous High Court order.