Jupiter Mkb Since 1955 vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order dated 18.02.2025, passed for the tax period from April 2020 to March 2021, on terms. The reasoning was that while the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 107, and had not participated in the adjudication proceedings, the Court found no reason to deviate from its practice of intervening in similar circumstances. The quashing was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount through the Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receiving the order. Additionally, the petitioner must file a reply to the notice in Form DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024 within the same 30-day period. If these conditions are met, the respondent is to pass fresh orders on merits after providing a hearing opportunity within three months. Non-compliance would result in the writ petition being dismissed. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the original tax demand.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jupiter MKB Since 1955, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the State Tax Officer under Section 73 of the GST enactments. The order pertained to the tax period from April 2020 to March 2021. The petitioner had not participated in the adjudication proceedings initiated by a notice in Form DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024. Although an alternate appellate remedy was available under Section 107 of the GST enactments, the petitioner had not availed it within the prescribed three-month period from the receipt of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the respective GST enactments, is without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions, warranting quashing by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. While not explicitly detailed in the judgment, the filing of a writ petition suggests a challenge to the procedural fairness or the substantive legality of the order. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the existence of the impugned order and the challenge to it implies the respondent's stance that the order was validly passed.