Case Law Details
Minimol Sabu Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court addressed a petition filed by Minimol Sabu, contesting a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Acts. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the notice lacked a valid cause of action for invoking Section 74, asserting that the notice also incorrectly pertained to a separate entity, registered under a different number, belonging to the petitioner’s husband. The petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice, outlining these objections. The petitioner sought a directive similar to a previous court order, which required the adjudicating authority to consider preliminary issues before proceeding with adjudication. The State’s counsel, representing the government, maintained that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not warranted, and that all contentions, including the validity of invoking Section 74, should be addressed by the adjudicating authority.
The court, after considering the arguments and referencing a precedent case, directed the adjudicating authority to treat the petitioner’s objections as preliminary issues. Specifically, the authority was instructed to first determine whether the show cause notice, in part, pertained to a separate legal entity with a distinct registration number, and to assess the petitioner’s challenge to the invocation of Section 74. This preliminary determination was to be completed before any further adjudication of the other issues raised in the show cause notice. The court disposed of the writ petition with this directive, ensuring that the petitioner’s fundamental concerns regarding the scope and validity of the notice were addressed prior to a full adjudication of the matter. This decision aims to streamline the adjudication process by mandating a clear resolution of jurisdictional and procedural challenges at the outset.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is before this Court challenging Ext.P1 show cause notice issued under the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts.
2. Sri. Akhil Suresh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is absolutely no cause of action for invoking Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also submitted that Ext.P1 show cause notice also relates to a separate entity belonging to the husband of the petitioner with separate registration number and for this reason also, Ext.P1 show cause notice cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has taken up both the issues in the reply filed to Ext.P1 show cause notice and the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction similar to the one issued by this Court as Ext.P3 judgment in W.P.(C) No.31434 of 2024 is issued in this case also.
3. Learned Senior Government Pleader submits that there is no ground made out to challenge Ext.P1 in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of It is submitted that all contentions will be considered by the Adjudicating Authority, including the contention that there is no reason to invoke Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts in the facts of this case.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and having regard to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P3, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the contention that the show cause notice (at least in part) pertains to a separate entity belonging to the husband of the petitioner with separate registration number and also the objection raised by the petitioner against the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts will be considered as a preliminary issue and an order shall be passed with regard to the same before proceeding to adjudicate the other issues in the show cause notice.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Author Bio
