M/S Microtek Universal Power Products Private Limited vs. State Of Hp And Others
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 20.06.2023, issued in FORM GST DRC-01, was to be set aside. The Court directed that this order 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 petitioner's 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 accepted the submissions of the learned Advocate General, effectively treating the erroneous order as a preliminary notice and providing the petitioner with the due process.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Microtek Universal Power Products Private Limited, assailed an order dated 20.06.2023, issued in FORM GST DRC-01 by the second respondent, purportedly under Section 74(9) of the HPGST/CGST Act, 2017. While the order stated it was a "summary of a Show Cause Notice," it also contained a table determining tax liability and directing payment. The petitioner contended this violated principles of natural justice as no prior show cause notice, as mandated by Section 74(1), was issued. The tax period and the specific amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.06.2023, issued in FORM GST DRC-01, passed purportedly under Section 74(9) of the HPGST/CGST Act, 2017, is in violation of the principle of natural justice due to the absence of a prior show cause notice as mandated by Section 74(1) of the HPGST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of Section 74(1) of the HPGST Act, as no prior show cause notice was issued, thereby contravening the principles of natural justice. Respondents' arguments: The learned Advocate General contended that the second respondent intended to issue only a Show Cause Notice but mistakenly included a determination of tax liability, penalty, and interest. The respondents proposed that the impugned order be treated as a Show Cause Notice, allowing the petitioner to file a reply, after which a reasoned order would be passed.
Sections Cited
Section 74(9), Section 74(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024:HHC:4052 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP no. 5561 of 2023 Decided on: 26th June, 2024 ________________________________________________________ M/s Microtek Universal Power Products Private Limited
....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/CG
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.