Case Law Details
Gemini Coach Builders Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)
It is seen that the petitioner has not only received the show cause notice but also earlier the petitioner was issued with summons and thereafter only DRC-01A has been issued, intimating the tax ascertained as being payable. Now, the show cause notice has been issued, for which, the petitioner has to give reply and thereafter personal hearing would be given, where he can make his submissions along with supporting documents, thereafter only order in original would be passed and it is the procedure as contemplated under law. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned notice of the fourth respondent dated 29.03.2022 having File No.GEXCOM/ ADJN/GST/ADC/96/2022-ADJN SCN No.02/ADC/2022/GST, DIN. 20220359XN0000313851.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was earlier issued summons on 15.11.2019, thereby calling for his explanation with regard to the 10 items listed therein. The petitioner appeared before the Superintendent of GST and Central Excise on 06.12.2019 and gave his explanation in detail. With regard to the question No.13 in Ministry’s F.No.354/17/2018-TRU dated 01.03.2018, the petitioner had given detailed explanation referring to circular No. 52/26/2018-GST dated 09.08.2018, wherein in para 2.03, it has been clearly clarified that in case of fabrication of body on chassis provided by the principal (not on account of body builder) the supply would merit classification as service and 18% GST as applicable will be charged. Thereafter, again the petitioner was issued notice under Section DRC-01A, for a short payment of Rs.11,17,33,272/-. The petitioner again given his reply on 14.03.2022. This being so, now the third notice has been issued, for which also the petitioner has given explanation that the department circular No.52/26/2018—GST has clearly clarified that GST applicable on job work is 18% only, which the petitioner has paid.
3. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 is that the first respondent issued summons calling the petitioner to give his receipts, produce documents and give his explanation. Thereafter, another notice was issued to the petitioner and again the petitioner appeared and given his reply on 06.12.2019, which was considered and thereafter DRC-01A notice has been issued in O.C.No.37 of 2022. The petitioner is now issued with a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act,2017. The petitioner if at all has got any objection to the show cause notice, then his objections will be heard and thereafter only the order in original can be passed. Even before passing any order, the petitioner has rushed to this Court, hence seeks dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 5 and perused the materials available on record.
5. It is seen that the petitioner has not only received the show cause notice but also earlier the petitioner was issued with summons and thereafter only DRC-01A has been issued, intimating the tax ascertained as being payable. Now, the show cause notice has been issued, for which, the petitioner has to give reply and thereafter personal hearing would be given, where he can make his submissions along with supporting documents, thereafter only order in original would be passed and it is the procedure as contemplated under law. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.
6. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. No cost. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
