Sri Shyam Stone Works (A Partnership Concern) Through Its Partner, Namely, Ved Prakash Khudania vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through The Secretary, Department Of State Tax

Held

The Court noted that the issues involved in the present writ petition were similar to those in W.P(T) No.4737 of 2024. Referring to the order passed in that case, the Court observed that since an explanation had been furnished in response to the first notice, no prejudice was being caused to the petitioner in responding to the second notice. The Court held that the petitioner needed to explain the alleged discrepancies pointed out in the notices for the authority to consider and proceed in accordance with law, as mandated by Section 61 of the JGST Act. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to explain the reasons sought in the notices within two weeks. The concerned authority was directed to consider the petitioner's explanation in accordance with law and take follow-up action based on the conclusion, in view of Section 61 of the JGST Act. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Shyam Stone Works, filed a writ petition challenging two notices issued by the respondents under Section 61 of the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (JGST Act) read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, 2017. The first notice was dated April 24, 2024 (Form GST ASMT 10, Reference No. 49), and the second was dated July 3, 2024 (Form GST ASMT 10, Reference No. 416). The petitioner contended that the issuance of these notices was without jurisdiction and in excess of the authority's power regarding scrutiny of returns. The petitioner stated that the issue was similar to a previously decided writ petition, W.P(T) No.4737 of 2024, and requested a similar disposal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 61 of the JGST Act, 2017, for scrutiny of returns were without jurisdiction and in excess of the authority's power? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the notices under Section 61 of the JGST Act was wholly without jurisdiction and in excess of the power conferred upon the respondent-authority regarding the scrutiny of returns. The petitioner relied on the similarity of the issue with W.P(T) No.4737 of 2024, which was disposed of by the Court on August 28, 2024. Revenue's Argument: The learned AC to Sr. S.C.-I appearing for the respondents-State had no objection to the writ petition being disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P(T) No.4737 of 2024.