Jindal Stone Works Through Its Propritor Namely Kanhaiya Kumar Khudania 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 was directed to consider the petitioner's response in accordance with the law. Following this consideration, the authority was to take follow-up action in view of the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act. The Court did not decide on the petitioner's contention regarding the jurisdiction of the authority in issuing the notice in Form GST ASMT-10, as the matter was settled by allowing the petitioner to respond to the subsequent notice. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
Facts
The petitioner, Jindal Stone Works, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging a notice in Form GST ASMT-10, issued on May 3, 2024, under Section 61 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST) Act read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules. The petitioner contended that the issuance of this notice was without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers conferred upon the respondent-authority for scrutiny of returns. The petitioner's counsel submitted 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 specified timeframe. The State's counsel had no opposition to this prayer.
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 powers conferred upon the respondent-authority for 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 regarding the scrutiny of returns as provided under Section 61 of the JGST Act. The respondents (State of Jharkhand and its tax authorities) did not present any arguments on the merits of the case as the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to respond to the second show-cause notice.
Sections Cited
Section 61, Rule 99(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1 of 2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (T) No. 4733 of 2024 Jindal Stone Works, (a Partnership firm), having its works at Mauza Bara Lohanda (Lohanda Bedo), P.O. & P.S. Boriyo (Jirwabari), District Sahebganj, through its Proprietor, namely, Kanhaiya Kumar Khudaniya, aged about 47 years, son of Kishan Lal Khudania, resident of 35, Mahajan Patti, Sahebganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj, PIN-816109, Jharkhand …………
PETITIONER Versus
State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of State Tax, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834004. 2. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand), PIN 816109. 3. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand), PIN 816109. 4. State Tax Officer, Sahibganj Circle, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand), PIN 816109. ………
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.