M/S.Madurai Radha Travels vs. Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Held

The Court held that the respondent authority erred in passing an order on 02.08.2023 for one of the assessment years without awaiting the adjudication of the earlier show cause notice dated 31.10.2022 and the impugned show cause notices dated 22.05.2023. The Court found that the issues were intertwined and a common order should have been passed after hearing the petitioner on all relevant notices. The Court directed the respondent to pass a suitable order in respect of the show cause notice dated 31.10.2022, along with the impugned show cause notices and the order passed on 02.08.2023, which was directed to be recalled. The entire exercise was to be completed within six months, with the petitioner filing a reply within 30 days and the respondent passing orders within three months thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that authorities must pass common orders when issues are intertwined and avoid piecemeal adjudication, especially when prior notices are pending.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Madurai Radha Travels, filed four writ petitions challenging demand-cum-show cause notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner(ST) (FAC) for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. These notices were dated 22.05.2023 and were in Form GST DRC-01A. The court noted that a prior show cause notice dated 31.10.2022 (No.121 of 2022-GST) was pending adjudication, and the respondent had passed an order on 02.08.2023 for one of the assessment years during the interregnum. The court observed that the issues were intertwined and a common order should have been passed after hearing the petitioner on all relevant notices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority erred by issuing impugned show cause notices dated 22.05.2023 for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2020-21, pending adjudication of a prior show cause notice dated 31.10.2022 (No.121 of 2022-GST)? 2. Whether the respondent authority erred by passing an order on 02.08.2023 for one of the assessment years during the pendency of the adjudication of the earlier show cause notice and the impugned show cause notices? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the issuance of subsequent show cause notices and passing of an order during the pendency of an earlier adjudication process was procedurally flawed, especially when the issues were intertwined. They sought quashing of the impugned notices. Revenue's arguments: The learned Government Advocate for the respondent did not present specific arguments against the petitioner's claims but produced a copy of the order passed on 02.08.2023. The court's decision was based on its own assessment of the procedural irregularities.