Mahindra And Mahindra Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging an ex-parte order dated December 29, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur. The petitioner contended that this order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petition also challenged Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the CHGST Act as ultra vires and violative of constitutional rights. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction, as there was no legal provision during the 2017-18 period requiring matching of GSTR-3B/9 figures with GSTR-2A filed by suppliers.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. After hearing arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one before the appropriate Court. The Court granted this permission. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No findings were recorded on the validity of the ex-parte order, the constitutionality of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST and CHGST Acts, or the jurisdiction of the show cause notice. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order dated December 29, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Raipur, is liable to be quashed and set aside for being passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 16(2)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, are ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, as contended by the petitioner? 3. Whether the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner is without jurisdiction, as during the period 2017-18, there was no provision of law requiring the petitioner to ensure matching of details/figures between GSTR-3B/9 and GSTR-2A filed by the supplier, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice. The revenue authorities did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. The petitioner also argued that Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST and CHGST Acts was unconstitutional and sought its reading down. The petitioner further argued that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction for the specified period due to the absence of a matching provision.