Santosh Kumar Roy Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Jharkhand High Court)
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Santosh Kumar Roy v. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(T) No. 4782 of 2022 dated January 24, 2023] quashed and set aside the Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) and the consequential order passed by the Revenue Department, on the grounds that the SCN issued to the assessee is not in strict compliance of Section 73 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). Held that, stating specific charges in the SCN is part of due procedure and fair play in action which are essential requirements of rule of law and has its genesis in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and since the principles of natural justice is not complied with, the ground of alternative remedy is not acceptable. Remanded back the matter to pass a fresh order after following the due procedure of law from the stage of issuing fresh SCN.
Facts:
Santosh Kumar Roy (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in a construction work and for supply of taxable services and receives input services, inputs and capital goods for use in the course or furtherance of its business and claims Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) on such inward supply in accordance with Section 16 of the CGST Act.
On February 9, 2021, a notice was issued to the Petitioner vide Section 61 of the CGST Act followed by a SCN under Section 73 of the CGST Act (“the Impugned SCN”) on January 7, 2022 along with summary of SCN in Form GST DRC-01 for the tax period January 2019-February 2019. Subsequently, the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) proceeded to issue Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 (“the Impugned Summary Order”) on February 9, 2022.
The Petitioner contended that, the Impugned SCN is in a format without striking out the irrelevant particulars, is vague and does not spell out the contravention for which the Petitioner is charged.
However, the Respondent contended that, the Petitioner the Impugned Order was passed due to non-reply to the Impugned SCN by the Petitioner, thus, there is no procedural lapse. Further, the Petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, therefore, this petition should not have been preferred.
Issue:
Whether the Impugned SCN along with Summary of SCN and the Impugned Summary Order passed by the Respondent are in violation of principles of natural justice?
Held:
The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(T) No.4782 of 2022 held as under:
