M/S Formative Tex Fax Through Partner Ratan Kumar Saraf vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court disposed of the writ application by directing the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax to immediately examine the petitioner's representation dated August 26, 2020, which brought the issue of premature issuance of Form GST DRC-01 to the authority's notice. The Court ordered the authority to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law within 15 days of receiving the order. The Court did not explicitly rule on the legality of issuing Form GST DRC-01 prematurely but rather directed the authority to address the petitioner's representation on this matter. The previous order regarding the continuation of provisional attachment was not disturbed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Formative Tex Fax, filed a writ application challenging a provisional attachment order (Form GST DRC-22) and a notice (Form GST DRC-01) issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. This was the second round of litigation. In the first round, this Court had quashed a prior order (Form GST DRC-01A) and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Court had, however, allowed the provisional attachment of the petitioner's properties to continue to protect revenue interests. The petitioner's grievance in the present application was that the authority issued a fresh GST DRC-01 simultaneously with the GST DRC-01A, despite the petitioner not having yet replied to the notice in Form-01A.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of Form GST DRC-01 by the respondent authority was premature and in contravention of the principles of natural justice, given that the petitioner had not yet been afforded an opportunity to reply to the notice in Form GST DRC-01A, as directed in the previous round of litigation? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the authority acted improperly by issuing the Form GST DRC-01 before allowing them to respond to the notice in Form GST DRC-01A. They contended that this bypassed the opportunity for a hearing and de novo consideration that the Court had previously mandated. They relied on the previous order of this Court which emphasized giving an opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state in response to this issue.