Sheikh Sabir vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that both the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original were non-speaking and computer-generated, indicating a lack of application of mind by the Competent Authority. The Court found that the show cause notice merely presented the demand in a tabular form with a brief statement about short payment of tax and excess availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), without providing detailed reasons. The Learned Government Advocate could not offer a satisfactory explanation for this. Consequently, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara-1, to issue a detailed show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner would then have 15 days to file a reply, which would be decided in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that since the petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original after the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired, the petitioner could not raise the plea of limitation regarding the issuance of the show cause notice. The writ petition was allowed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sheikh Sabir, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated April 19, 2023, and an Order-in-Original dated May 25, 2023, issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The Order-in-Original demanded recovery of Rs. 2,91,71,368/-. The petitioner's primary contention was that both the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original were non-speaking and computer-generated, and that the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice was not considered. The Court examined the documents and found them to be lacking in application of mind by the Competent Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 19.04.2023 and the Order-in-Original dated 25.05.2023, issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, are non-speaking and computer-generated, thus vitiating the proceedings? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that both the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original were non-speaking and computer-generated. They further contended that their reply to the show cause notice was not considered, indicating a lack of application of mind by the Competent Authority. Revenue's Argument: The Learned Government Advocate failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the conduct of the Competent Authority regarding the non-speaking nature of the notices and the alleged non-consideration of the petitioner's reply.