M/S Maa Tara Stone Works Through Its Proprietor Namely Sunil Kumar Singh vs. State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Deptt Of State Tax

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to respond to the second show-cause notice within two weeks. The concerned authority is directed to consider the petitioner's response in accordance with law. Following this consideration, the authority will take appropriate follow-up action as mandated by Section 61 of the JGST Act. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the jurisdiction of the notice, as the parties agreed to this procedural resolution. The ratio decidendi is that when a party seeks to respond to a show-cause notice and the opposing party has no objection, the High Court may permit such a response and direct the authority to consider it, thereby avoiding an adjudication on the validity of the notice at the writ stage.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Tara Stone Works, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Jharkhand High Court. The petition challenged a Notice in Form GST ASMT-10, issued on July 10, 2024, with reference number 454. This notice was allegedly issued under Section 61 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST) Act, read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, for the scrutiny of returns. The petitioner contended that the issuance of this notice was without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers conferred upon the respondent-authority under Section 61. The respondents are the State of Jharkhand and various State Tax authorities.

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, is without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers conferred upon the respondent-authority regarding scrutiny of returns? The petitioner argued that the issuance of the notice was wholly without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers conferred upon the respondent-authority under Section 61 of the JGST Act. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, stated that a second show-cause notice had been issued, and since the first show-cause notice had been responded to, the writ petition could be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to respond to the second show-cause notice within a specific timeframe. The respondents, represented by Ms. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG-III, did not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.