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 the law. Following this consideration, the authority will take appropriate follow-up action in view of the mandate of 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. The ratio decidendi is that when a party seeks to respond to a subsequent notice and the revenue does not object, the High Court may permit such a response to avoid premature adjudication of jurisdictional issues, thereby facilitating the statutory process.

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 sought to quash a Notice in Form GST ASMT-10, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, on April 26, 2024. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers conferred under Section 61 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST) Act, 2017, and Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, 2017, concerning the scrutiny of returns. The petitioner's counsel 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 respond to the second show-cause notice within a specified time. The respondents-State did not oppose this prayer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Notice in Form GST ASMT-10, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, on April 26, 2024, is without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers conferred under Section 61 of the JGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, 2017, regarding the scrutiny of returns? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the notice was wholly without jurisdiction and exceeded the authority's powers for scrutiny of returns as provided under Section 61 of the JGST Act. Respondents' contention: The respondents-State did not oppose the petitioner's prayer for disposal of the writ petition with liberty to respond to the second show-cause notice.