M/S Microtek Himachal Pradesh Products PVT LTD vs. The State Of Hp And Others
Held
The Court accepted the submissions of the learned Advocate General. The impugned order dated 20.06.2023 was set aside. It was directed to be treated as a Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted four weeks' time to file a reply to this Show Cause Notice. Upon receipt of the reply, the second respondent was directed to offer a personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law, which would then be communicated to the petitioner. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved based on the concession made by the revenue.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Microtek Himachal Power Products Private Limited, challenged an order dated 20.06.2023, issued by the second respondent (an authority under the HPGST/CGST Act, 2017) in FORM GST DRC-01. The petitioner contended that the impugned order, though stated to be a summary of a Show Cause Notice, contained a table determining tax liability and directed payment, thus violating the principle of natural justice as no prior show cause notice was issued as mandated by Section 74(1) of the HPGST Act. The order was passed by the second respondent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.06.2023, issued in FORM GST DRC-01 by the second respondent, is in violation of Section 74(1) of the HPGST Act, 2017, and the principle of natural justice by failing to issue a prior show cause notice before determining tax liability? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order, despite being termed a summary of a show cause notice, determined tax liability and directed payment, which is contrary to the requirement of a prior show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the HPGST Act, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The learned Advocate General for the respondents contended that the second respondent intended to issue only a Show Cause Notice but erroneously mentioned the determination of tax liability, penalty, and interest. The respondents proposed that the impugned order be treated as a Show Cause Notice, and the petitioner be granted an opportunity to file a reply, after which a reasoned order would be passed.
Sections Cited
Section 74(1), Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024:HHC:4053 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP no. 5562 of 2023 Decided on: 26th June, 2024 ________________________________________________________ M/s Microtek Himachal Power Products Private Limted
....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner: Mr. Amar Pratap Singh and Mr. Goverdhan Lal Sharma, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Mr. Gobind Korla, Mr.Sushant Kaprete, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.Arsh Rattan,Ms. Priyanka Chauhan & Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (oral)
In this Writ petition, the petitioner assails order dt.20.06.2023, Order in FORM GST DRC-01 passed by the second respondent purportedly u/s 74(9) of the HPGST/CGST
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.