M/S J.K.M. Infra Projects Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s J.K.M. Infra Projects Limited, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging a show cause notice dated 10.02.2020 issued under Section 73 of the GST Act for the tax period February 2019 (financial year 2018-19). The petitioner also challenged an order dated 12.03.2020 and a demand notice dated 17.03.2020. The grounds for challenge included the absence of assigned reasons in the show cause notice and the initiation of proceedings without proper adjudication or determination of tax. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner, Shahabad Circle, Ara, Bihar, and others. The High Court was informed that a similar petition, CWJC No. 2847 of 2021, concerning M/s J.K.M. Infra Projects Limited, had been disposed of by the Court on 29.04.2021. The petitioner's counsel agreed to dispose of the present petition in light of the previous judgment.

Held

The Court disposed of the petition in terms of its previous judgment in CWJC No. 2847 of 2021. The petitioner was granted permission to prefer an appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority within four weeks from the date of the order, potentially through digital mode. The revenue was directed not to raise the issue of limitation if the appeal was filed within the stipulated period. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits, in compliance with the principles of natural justice, within eight weeks of its filing. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open for determination by the appellate authority. Liberty was reserved for the parties to take recourse to other remedies available in law. The Court also noted that proceedings during the pandemic could be conducted through digital mode.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 10.02.2020, the order dated 12.03.2020, and the demand notice dated 17.03.2020 are liable to be quashed on the grounds that no reasons were assigned in the show cause notice and that the proceedings were initiated without proper adjudication and determination of tax, thereby rendering them without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice principles, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether tax, interest, and penalty can be levied without initiating adjudication proceedings, as contended by the petitioner? The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's disposal of the matter was based on a previous order where the petitioner sought permission to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. The revenue's counsel agreed to this course of action, stating that the issue of limitation would not be raised if an appeal was filed within four weeks.