M/S. Irish Health Care, Rep By vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)

Held

The Court decided to quash the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, subject to certain conditions, to provide partial relief to the petitioner. The reasoning was that while the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice, it was not discussed in detail in the impugned order, and the petitioner did not appear. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within thirty days of receiving the order. Upon compliance, the petitioner was to file a reply to the show cause notice, treating it as an addendum, along with the deposit. The second respondent was then to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within three months, after hearing the petitioner. Failure to comply would allow the second respondent to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed. The issue of overlapping jurisdiction was implicitly addressed by noting the different tax periods for the impugned order and the Central Authority order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. IRISH Health Care, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the second respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer. This order was issued for the assessment year 2018-19, following a notice in DRC-01 dated 01.02.2023. The petitioner had replied to the notice on 30.04.2024 but did not appear when the order was passed. The petitioner also mentioned a Central Authority order dated 05.12.2023 concerning a dispute for the tax period 01.07.2017 – 31.03.2018, and noted that an appeal was filed before the Appellate Commissioner on 10.05.2024 against the impugned order. The Court observed that the impugned order and the Central Authority order pertained to different tax periods and did not indicate overlapping jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the second respondent, is liable to be quashed as unconstitutional, considering the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and subsequent non-appearance. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without properly considering their reply and that there might be an overlapping jurisdiction issue with a Central Authority order. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not explicitly record arguments but were present to defend the impugned order. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice but did not appear, leading to the order being passed.