N.P. Infra Projects PVT. LTD. Through Its Director Nitin Tapadiya vs. Union Of INDIA Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue

Held

The Court held that the notice dated 04.10.2022, issued by Respondent 5, should be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the petitioner's representation dated 20.05.2019 by the Nodal Officer (Respondent 8). The Court directed the Nodal Officer to decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of the current order. Only after this decision is made should the respondents proceed further with the matter pursuant to the notice dated 04.10.2022. The Court noted that the petitioner was directed to furnish a certified copy of this order to Respondent Nos. 5, 6, and 8 within ten days. The petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide on the other prayers related to amendment, rectification, regularization of ITC, or penalty/interest, as the primary issue of procedural compliance was addressed.

Facts

The petitioner, N.P. Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including compliance with a previous court order in W.P. 26509/2018, quashing a notice dated 04.10.2022, and permission to amend registration, rectify details, and regularize Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner argued that the Nodal Officer (Respondent 8) failed to decide their representation dated 20.05.2019 within the stipulated two weeks as per the earlier court order, and instead, a notice dated 04.10.2022 was issued. The respondent/State contended that the notice itself provided an opportunity for clarification and the petitioner should have responded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 04.10.2022, issued by Respondent 5 (Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax), is liable to be quashed for being a post-decisional hearing issued without complying with the directions of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. 26509/2018, thereby violating principles of natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated 04.10.2022 was issued prematurely and in violation of the prior court order in W.P. 26509/2018, which directed the Nodal Officer to decide their representation within two weeks. Since no decision was taken by the Nodal Officer, the subsequent notice should not have been issued. They relied on the principle that a statutory authority must comply with court directions before proceeding further. Respondent's Contention: The respondent/State argued that the notice dated 04.10.2022 itself provided an opportunity for the petitioner to furnish clarification and relevant documents, and therefore, the petitioner ought to have submitted their explanation rather than approaching the court directly. They implicitly argued that the notice was a procedural step and not a final decision.