Deputy Commissioner State Taxes (Recovery) Excise And Taxation Complex Jammu And Anr vs. Khurshida Bi And Ors

Facts

The petitioners, Deputy Commissioner State Taxes (Recovery) and State Taxes Officer, filed a review petition seeking to review a High Court order dated 24.03.2025 in WP(C) No. 3026/2024. The original writ petition had quashed a Show Cause Notice dated 31.07.2024, a reminder dated 26.09.2024, and a recovery notice dated 19.08.2024. The petitioners argued that a final order confirming a demand under Section 74 of the J&K GST/CGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2017-18, passed on 02.03.2023, was not specifically discussed or quashed in the original judgment. The demand amount was ₹33,19,054.52/-.

Held

The Court held that the judgment sought to be reviewed does not suffer from any error of law or fact apparent on the face of the record. The original judgment had correctly concluded that the demand was confirmed without hearing the taxpayer, as the show cause notice was issued to a dead person, thus violating the principles of natural justice. While the final order confirming the demand under Section 74 dated 02.03.2023 was not explicitly mentioned or quashed in the original judgment, the Court clarified that the quashment of the Show Cause Notice, which led to this confirmation, automatically vitiates all subsequent proceedings, including the final order of demand. Therefore, the final order is deemed to have been quashed. The Court reiterated that the recovery notice was also quashed with liberty to the petitioners to proceed afresh after complying with the principles of natural justice. The review petition was found to have no merit. The ratio decidendi is that the quashment of a show cause notice due to violation of natural justice vitiates all subsequent consequential orders, even if not expressly mentioned.

Key Issues

1. Whether the judgment dated 24.03.2025 suffers from an error of law or fact apparent on the face of the record, specifically concerning the non-discussion or non-quashment of the final demand order dated 02.03.2023 passed under Section 74 of the J&K GST/CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the final order confirming the demand under Section 74 for the financial year 2017-18, passed on 02.03.2023, was not addressed by the Court in its previous judgment, and therefore, it remains valid. They sought to have this order either discussed or specifically quashed. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondents (Khurshid Bibi & Ors.) in the review petition. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the original judgment found the demand vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, as the show cause notice was issued to a deceased person.