Case Law Details
FSM Education Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
In the case FSM Education Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors., the Bombay High Court addressed whether a show cause notice under GST laws could be issued without considering the reply to a pre-consultation notice. The petitioner argued that a pre-consultation notice issued under Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, required the authorities to account for their response before issuing a formal show cause notice. The dispute arose when the petitioner submitted their reply to the pre-consultation notice within an extended deadline they had requested but received no acknowledgment. Instead, a show cause notice was issued without apparent consideration of their response.
During the proceedings, the petitioner sought relief to prevent the GST authorities from proceeding with the adjudication hearing scheduled on January 27, 2025, arguing that the matter would become infructuous if an order were passed. The court allowed the hearings to continue but directed the authorities not to issue a final adjudication order until further notice. The respondents were granted time to file an affidavit-in-reply, and the matter was scheduled for further hearing on February 11, 2025. The interim relief ensures procedural compliance is examined before final action.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. The issue in the above Writ Petition is regarding whether a show cause notice could have been issued without taking into consideration the reply filed by the Petitioner to the pre-consultation notice issued to the Petitioner under Rule 142 (1A) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017. Rule 142 (1A) was brought on the statute book on 9th October 2019 and underwent an amendment on 15th October 2020.
2. In the present case, it is the case of the Petitioner that the pre-consultation notice was issued to the Petitioner in FORM GST DRC-01A on 11th July 2024. By this notice, the Petitioner was called upon to file a reply by 22nd July 2024. Since the pre-consultation notice referred to a calculation sheet, and which was not annexed to the said notice, the Petitioner on 13th July 2024 addressed an e-mail to the Revenue Authorities seeking a copy of the calculation sheet. On 19th July 2024 the Revenue Authorities, via their e-mail forwarded the aforesaid calculations. After receipt of the calculations, the Petitioner, on the very same day, by their e-mail dated 19th July 2024, sought 10 days time to respond to the pre-consultation notice. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Authorities did not respond or reject the aforesaid request. Accordingly on 29th July 2024 (i.e. the 10th day) the Petitioner responded to the pre-consultation notice vide their e-mails dated 29th July 2024 at 5.07 p.m. and 5.09 p.m. A hard copy of the aforesaid reply was also furnished to the Respondent Authorities on 30th July 2024. It is the case of the Petitioner that despite this, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner dated 29th July 2024, and which was forwarded by e-mail to the Petitioner only at 5.02 p.m. on 30th July 2024. The case of the Petitioner is therefore that once the reply to the pre-consultation notice was already with the Authorities, the show cause notice could not have been issued without taking into consideration their reply. This is a long and short of the dispute in the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents sought time to file an affidavit-in-reply to the above Writ Petition. Acceding to her request, we direct that the reply, if any, shall be filed on or before 4th February 2025 and a copy of the same shall be served on the advocates for the Petitioner.
4. We now place the above matter for admission on 11th February 2025.
5. At this stage, Mr. Ardeshir, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the next hearing on the show cause notice is fixed on 27th January 2025, and if the hearing proceeds and an adjudication order is passed, this Petition would be rendered infructuous.
6. We have heard Mr. Ardeshir on this limited aspect. We are not inclined to stay the hearings that have been fixed on the show cause notice. We, therefore, direct that though the hearings can proceed, the concerned Authority shall not pass any adjudication order on the said show cause notice until further orders.
7. Stand over to 11th February 2025.
8. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
Author Bio
