Deepak Kumar Bhagat Vs Commissioner of State Tax (Jharkhand High Court)
The Jharkhand High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Deepak Kumar Bhagat against the Commissioner of State Tax. The petitioner sought to quash and set aside a series of actions taken by the Respondent No. 2 concerning the period April 2018 to March 2019 under the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Rules.
The reliefs requested by the petitioner included:
- Quashing the Show Cause Notice (Ref. No. ZD200820001390B dated 27.08.2020) issued under Section 73 of the Act, arguing it was vague, a mere mechanical reproduction of the section’s provisions without striking off irrelevant portions, and without jurisdiction because no penalty of 100% of the tax amount is imposable under Section 73.
- Quashing the Summary of Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC-01 (Ref. No. ZD200820001390B dated 27.08.2020), as it was allegedly issued without serving a proper show cause notice under Section 73.
- Quashing the Summary of Order in FORM GST DRC-07 (Ref. No. ZD2012200007583 dated 14.12.2020), also arguing it was issued without serving a proper show cause notice under Section 73.
- Quashing the Order dated 13.09.2021 (as mentioned in Form GST APL-02) passed by the Appellate Authority (Joint Commissioner, JGST, Godda, Dumka), which rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Summary of Order dated 14.12.2020. The rejection reason stated was “Non receipt of certified copies”. The petitioner claimed this rejection was illegal as it was done without providing any opportunity of hearing, without any notice, and even without providing a copy of the appeal.
- A declaration that all actions by the Respondent Department were illegal, arbitrary, and malafide because the petitioner claimed there was no difference in the ITC amount in GSTR- 3B and GSTR- 2A for the period in question, and the due ITC was taken as per the records maintained.
The High Court, after reviewing the records, found that the first appellate authority rejected the appeal solely on the ground of non-receipt of the certified copies. The Court termed this view “hyper technical”, emphasizing that an opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the petitioner, especially since the appeal was reportedly filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
