M/S Cera Sanitaryware Limited vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that a writ application challenging a notice of intimation in FORM GST DRC-01A issued under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable in law. The Court reasoned that this notice is merely an intimation of a potential liability and does not determine the actual liability of the petitioner. The petitioner has the discretion to either act upon this intimation or ignore it. If ignored, it may lead to a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Act. Crucially, the Court emphasized that even if a show cause notice is issued, the petitioner will be granted an opportunity of hearing before any final determination of their liability is made. Therefore, the notice under Section 74(5) does not prejudice the petitioner's rights or create an immediate cause for legal challenge via a writ petition. The Court did not decide on the issue of illegal access under Section 71 as it was not the subject of the writ.

Facts

M/s Cera Sanitaryware Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ application challenging a notice of intimation in FORM GST DRC-01A dated March 3, 2020, issued by the respondent No. 2. This notice, issued under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, informed the petitioner of a tax, interest, and penalty liability amounting to Rs. 80,69,313. The notice also stated that failure to deposit this amount might lead to a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Act. The petitioner also raised a submission regarding illegal access to their business premises under Section 71 of the Act, but the Court clarified this was not the subject of the challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ application challenging a notice of intimation in FORM GST DRC-01A issued under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is maintainable in law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice of intimation under Section 74(5) was illegal. They also raised a secondary issue concerning alleged illegal access to their business premises under Section 71 of the Act, though this was clarified as not being the primary challenge. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or State. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the revenue's position, as understood by the Court, is that the notice is merely an intimation and not an appealable or challengeable order at this stage.