M/S Padam Kumar Jain Thro Its Proprietor Namely Padam Kumar Jain vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Commissioner State Tax Department

Held

The High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. The Court acknowledged the contentions of both parties. The petitioner was permitted to proceed in accordance with law, which included the liberty to file an appeal. The Court specifically directed that the petitioner could raise the very issue of jurisdiction, which was the primary ground for the writ petition, before the appellate authority. The Court did not decide on the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the show-cause notice or the adjudication order. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Padam Kumar Jain, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging a show-cause notice dated January 31, 2024, and a consequential summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated January 31, 2024. The petitioner contended that these notices were issued under Section 74(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by Respondent No. 4, the State Tax Officer. The petitioner argued that a reply to the show-cause notice had already been filed, and the subsequent adjudication order dated April 30, 2024, was issued without considering this reply, rendering it unsustainable. The respondents, representing the State Revenue Department, argued that a writ petition against a show-cause notice is not maintainable and that issues of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner could be considered by the appellate authority. They also stated that the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice was yet to be considered.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a show-cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly when the petitioner has already filed a reply and an adjudication order has been passed without considering it. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the JGST Act, along with the consequential summary, was unsustainable. They further contended that the adjudication order passed subsequently, without considering their reply to the show-cause notice, was also not sustainable in law. Revenue's Contention: The respondents argued that a writ application against a show-cause notice is not maintainable. They contended that the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner could be considered by the appellate authority. Additionally, they stated that the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice was yet to be considered in accordance with law.