Case Law Details
Abdul Rahiman Kunju Vs Deputy Commissioner (Supreme Court of India)
In the matter before the Supreme Court of India and the Kerala High Court, the dispute related to proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the CGST Act and the maintainability of a writ petition challenging the adjudication order.
The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties and examining the material on record, held that no good ground existed to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.
Before the High Court, the appellant had challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.39831 of 2025. The appellant argued that the Single Judge incorrectly treated Ext.P2 as a notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act and dismissed the writ petition on that basis while relegating the appellant to the statutory appellate remedy against Ext.P9 order.
The appellant contended that Ext.P2 was not a valid notice under Section 74 but merely an intimation, and therefore the subsequent adjudication order Ext.P9 was void and liable to be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was argued that earlier intimations referred to by the department could not substitute the statutory requirement of a proper notice under Section 74.
The State, however, conceded that Ext.P2 was only an intimation and not a Section 74 notice. It submitted that Ext.P3 was the actual notice issued under Section 74 in Form GST DRC-01 under Rule 142(1)(a) of the GST Rules. The respondents further pointed out that the appellant had filed Ext.P5 reply specifically responding to Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 reminder, thereby acknowledging Ext.P3 as the statutory show cause notice.
The Division Bench observed that the learned Single Judge was incorrect in treating Ext.P2 as a notice under Section 74. The Court held that Ext.P2 was merely an intimation or communication. However, the Court found that Ext.P3 clearly satisfied the requirements of a notice under Section 74 because it was issued in Form GST DRC-01 invoking Rule 142(1)(a) of the GST Rules.
The appellant argued that Ext.P3 was only a summary of a show cause notice and not the notice itself. However, the Court noted that Ext.P3 was followed by Ext.P4 reminder, after which the appellant filed Ext.P5 objections explicitly stating that the reply was being submitted to the show cause notice. The Court observed that the contention disputing Ext.P3 as a valid notice appeared to have been raised subsequently through Ext.P8 “Notes of Argument.”
The High Court reiterated that ordinarily a writ challenge under Article 226 would lie only where the impugned order is shown to be void or issued without jurisdiction. The Court held that the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the appellant to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, despite the incorrect finding regarding Ext.P2.
The Court further observed that prima facie Ext.P3 satisfied the statutory requirements under Section 74 of the Act. Nevertheless, it clarified that the appellant remained free to raise all contentions regarding the validity of Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 before the appellate authority.
Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed. The Court clarified that it did not approve the finding of the Single Judge that Ext.P2 constituted a Section 74 notice, but all other observations and directions were confirmed. Liberty was granted to the appellant to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against Ext.P9 and raise all legal and factual contentions before the appellate authority.
The Supreme Court thereafter dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the High Court judgment, thereby leaving the High Court’s directions undisturbed.
Read High Court Judgment in this case: Abdul Rahiman Kunju Vs Deputy Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials available on record, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
