Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24

February, 2022

Author: J.B.Pardiwala

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18860 of 2021

With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1169 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2263 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3140 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

=============================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?

=============================================
AGGARWAL DYEING AND PRINTING WORKS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 1

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

NATASHA SUTARIA(7907) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

Date : 24/02/2022

Page 1 of 24

Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 14:10:38

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)

1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ applications are the same, those were taken up for
hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No.18860 of 2021 is treated as the lead
matter.

3. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have
prayed for the following reliefs:

"a. Direct Respondent no.3 to revoke cancellation of the registration of the writ
applicant bearing no. 24AEXPA3306CIZZ b. Direct Respondent no.2 to consider the
Appeal for Revocation the cancellation of Respondent dated 17.07.2021 filed by the
writ applicant on merits c. Direct Respondent no.3 to accept and consider the
Application for revocation of registration by the writ applicant within a period of 14
days from the date of application.

d. Award costs of the writ application and orders thereon; and e. Grant such further
and other interim reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
present nature and circumstances of the case."

4. The summary of facts of the case as pleaded by the writ applicant in the lead matter are as under :

4.1 The writ applicant is a sole proprietary concern and is engaged in the business of
manufacturing of dyeing and printing fabrics. The writ applicant was a registered

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 2

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

dealer holding GSTIN registration no. 24AEXPA3306C1ZZ, under the

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 provisions of the Gujarat
Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act, 2017') with effect from
04.08.2017. The copy of such registration certificate in the Form GST REG-06, dated
16.02.2018 has been placed on record. The writ applicant claims to be a regular tax
payer.

4.2 On 18.09.2018, the writ applicant was served with a show cause notice issued by
respondent no.3 calling upon to reply as to why the registration should not be
cancelled for the reason that the writ applicant had not filed his returns for a
continuous period of six months. The writ applicant was asked to furnish his reply
and hearing was fixed on 27.09.2018.

4.3 The writ applicant, however, failed to submit his reply and on 30.09.2018, the
Assistant Commissioner, Ghatak 21 (Ahmedabad) passed an ex-parte order of
cancellation of registration with effect from it's date of registration ie. 04.08.2017.

4.4 The writ applicant claims to be lacking knowledge of the New tax regime and
having learnt about the cancellation of registration, sought the advise of his
Chartered Accountant and belatedly filed his returns. The writ applicant has placed
on record the returns filed in FORM GSTR-3B for the period between April, 2020
and March, 2021. The writ applicant had availed the benefit of the amnesty scheme
dated 28.05.2021 by making the requisite payment of an amount of Rs. 24,000/-.
The writ applicant has placed on record the challan dated 29.07.2021 about deposit
of such amount.

4.5 After a delay of almost more than two years, the writ applicant preferred an
appeal on 17.07.2021, before the C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED:
24/02/2022 Appellate Authority by submitting FORM GST APL-01 under Section
107 of the Act, 2017 read with Rule 108(1) of the Rules framed there under.

4.6 The writ applicant tried to offer explanation for the delay stating that because of
lack of knowledge about filing of returns , more particularly, when the turnover was
'NIL', under the bonafide belief that no return is required to be tendered, the same
was not submitted. The writ applicant further offered to deposit the amount of tax
and penalty and to abide by the filing of return and payment of tax in future
transactions.

4.7 The Appellate Authority however, vide order dated 12.10.2021, declined to
exercise its discretion and thereby dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 2
years and 17 days.

4.8 In such circumstances, the writ applicant has approach this court, seeking reliefs
as sought for.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 3

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

5. Before we examine the merits of the case, we may reproduce tabular details of
allied matters, as under :

Case no. Registration no. Show cause Order of Returns details( dated). notice(dated)
cancellation of filed/ tax Appeal filed, Reasons registration paid. if any.

assigned. (dated).
Reasons
recorded in
order.
SCA no. 1169 24ANFPG0506M 06.09.2021 25.10.2021
of 2020 1ZB Registration Registration
Dated obtained by obtained by
30.03.2021 means of fraud, means of fraud,
willfull willfull
misstatement misstatement
or suppression or suppression
of facts. of facts.

SCA no. 2263 24AAUPY0725C1 24.05.2019 29.06.2019 Claims to

of 2022. ZL Not filed returns Not filed returns have file
Dated for continuous for continuous returns
15.09.2018 period of six period of six manually
months. months. and also

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/

paid tax.
Applicatio
n dated
12.09.20

seeking
revocatio
n
pending.
SCA no. 3140 24AAFFTS101Q1 19.06.2019 27.06.2019 Applicatio
of 2022 Z1 Not filing Sought time to n dt.
07.07.2018 returns for file reply 29.06.20
continues however, order 19,
period of six passed without seeking
months. providing revocatio
reasons. n
rejected

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 4

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

vide
order
dated
03.08.20
19.

6. This court while issuing notices in each of these cases had prima facie found that
the show cause notice seeking cancellation of the registration issued by the respective
Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner under the said Act, is devoid of any
specific details/particulars. Again, pursuant to the such show cause notices what was
even more glaring was to note the impugned orders of cancellation of registration.
Thus, this Court passed following order :

"1. We have heard Ms. Prutha Bhavsar, the learned counsel appearing for the writ
applicant.

2. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ applicant is to the order passed
by the respondent No.3 cancelling the registration of the writ applicant under the
G.S.T. Act. Ms. Bhavsar first invited our attention to page : 19 of the paper book i.e.
the show cause, which was issued to her client dated 18th September 2018. Ms.
Bhavsar, thereafter, invited our attention to page : 20 of the paper book i.e. the order
cancelling the registration dated 30th September 2018. In the last, she invited our
attention to page : 53 of the paper book, it is an order passed by the appellate
authority dismissing the appeal filed by the writ applicant on the ground that the
same is time barred.

3. We take notice of the fact that the show cause notice at page : 19 (Annexure : B) is
as vague as anything. The order cancelling the registration is at page : 20 is more
vague than the show cause notice.

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022

4. Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 16th February 2022. Direct service is
permitted.

5. On the returnable date, notify this matter on top of the Board."

7. On the next date of hearing, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned Assistant Government Pleader,
appeared for the respondent authorities and the matters were posted next day. When the matters
were taken up for further hearing, attention of the Additional Solicitor General of India was drawn
about the manner in which the cancellation of registration of certificate under the CGST/ GGST Act,
2017 are persuaded. Upon hearing the learned Counsels, this Court passed following order on

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 5

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

17.02.2022 :

"1. These matters have been notified today so as to understand from Mr. Devang
Vyas, the learned A.S.G. assisted by Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned A.G.P. as to
what mechanism the department would like to evolve so as to cure the problem of
issuing show cause notices containing no specific particulars and also the final orders
that are being passed cancelling the registration under the GST Act. Mr. Vyas
submitted that he has taken up the issue very seriously with the department and
within a short period of time, this problem shall be taken care of. Mr. Vyas prays for a
week time to put forward a concrete proposal, which should take care of this issue of
vague show cause notice and vague final orders of cancellation of registration.

2. We have been given to understand that the portal is not permitting the concerned
officer to insert the material particulars or necessary information to make any show
cause notice or any final order, a speaking order or a meaningful order. If the
problem is in the portal, then our suggestion is that a show cause notice as well as the
final order should be passed on a paper like any other order which any authority or a
Court of law passes. Such show cause notice or order should be dispatched at the
correct address of the dealer concerned. If this exercise is undertaken, then no dealer
will come to the Court complaining that the show cause notice as well as the final
order are vague or unintelligible. Mr. Vyas further pointed out that in the portal,
some arrangement has been made to indicate an attachment. So, tomorrow, if any
dealer comes to know that a show cause notice has been issued or final order has
been passed, there is some attachment to the same. Such attachment should go to the
registered premises of the dealer in a physical form.

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022

3. Post these matters once again on 24thFebruary 2022. We hope that by 24th
February 2022, the issue is resolved at the end of the respondents."

In light of the aforesaid facts, the controversy in all these writ application is in the narrow compass
i.e. Whether the show cause notice seeking cancellation of registration and the consequential
impugned order cancelling registration under the GST Act, 2017 is valid and sustainable in eye of
law?

8. At this stage it would be appropriate to look into relevant legal provisions and the legal position in
facts of the cases on hand.

8.1 Scheme of the Act :

The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was promulgated and brought into
force with effect from 1-7-2017, which is an Act to make a provision for levy and
collection of tax on intra-State supply of goods or services or both by the Central

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 6

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

Government and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Likewise, the
Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the GGST, 2017') was enacted
and published in Gujarat Government Gazette dated 9 th June, 2017, which is also an
Act to make a provision for levy and collection of tax on intra-State supply of goods or
services or both by the State of Gujarat and the matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. Thus, the resultant effect upon introduction of the CGST Act, 2017
and the GGST Act, 2017, was that the statutes which were imposing indirect taxes
stood repealed and the only indirect taxes that prevailed are the Central GST and the
State GST. The levy of goods and services tax on goods and services is being made by
the Central Government C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022
under the provisions as promulgated under the CGST Act, 2017 and the State
Government levy goods and services tax under the provisions as promulgated under
the State GST Act. The related provisions for certificate of registration and it's
cancellation, under the said Act are as under :

€ Section 2(107) defines the term "taxable person" means a person who is registered
or liable to be registered under Section 22 or Section 24.

€ Chapter VI pertains to Registration. Section 22 provides for person liable for

registration. Section 23 pertains to person who shall not be liable for registration
whereas section 24 provides for compulsory registration in certain cases specified
therein. Section 25 provides application to be made within period of thirty days and
prescribes procedure to be followed for registration. Section 26 provides deemed
registration.

€ The Gujarat Goods and service Rules, 2017 has come into effect from 22nd June,
2017. Chapter III deals with subject "Registration". Rule 8 provides for Application
for registration. Rule 10 provides for Issue of registration certificate. Rule 16 provides
for Suo Moto registration.

€ Section 29 confers power upon the Proper Officer for cancellation of Registration.
Section 30 provides for revocation of cancellation of registration. Against the
aforesaid substantive provisions prescribed under the Act, the corresponding rules
framed thereunder are also required to be looked into. Rule 20 provides for filing of
application for cancellation of registration by the dealer.

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 Rule 21 provides for

Registration to be cancelled by the proper officer in certain cases. Rule 22 deals for
procedure to be adhered while proceeding for with Cancellation of Registration. Rule
23 deals with Revocation of cancellation of registration.

9. In light of the aforesaid provisions, we notice that registration of any business entity under the
GST Law implies obtaining a unique number from the concerned tax authorities for the purpose of
collecting tax on behalf of the government and to avail Input tax credit for the taxes on his inward

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 7

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

supplies. Without registration, a person can neither collect tax from his customers nor claim any
input tax credit of tax paid by him. It appears that registration in GST is PAN based and State
specific. Thus, supplier has to get himself register in each of such State or Union territory from
where he effects supply. The Act empowers proper officer and registration granted under GST can
be cancelled for specified reasons. The cancellation can either be initiated by the department on
their own motion or the registered person can apply for cancellation of their registration.

9.1 From the bare reading of the rules, 2017 along with statutory provision, the reasons for
cancellation can be curled out as under :

a) a person registered under any of the existing laws, but who is not liable to be
registered under the GST Act;

b) the business has been discontinued, transferred fully for any reason including
death of the proprietor, amalgamated with other legal entity, demerged or otherwise
11 disposed of;

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022

c) there is any change in the constitution of the business;

d) the taxable person (other than the person who has voluntarily taken registration under
sub-section (3) of section 25 of the CGST Act, 2017) is no longer liable to be registered;

e) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder;

f) a person paying tax under Composition levy has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax
periods;

g) any registered person, other than a person paying tax under Composition levy has not furnished
returns for a continuous period of six months;

h) any person who has taken voluntary registration under sub-section (3) of section 25 has not
commenced business within six months from the date of registration;

i) registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts.

9.2 The procedure for cancellation of registration can be summarized as under:

i. A person already registered under any of the existing laws (Central excise, Service
tax, VAT etc.), but who now is not liable to be registered under the GST Act has to
submit an application electronically by 31st December 2017, in FORM GST REG-29
at the common portal for the cancellation of registration granted to him. The
Superintendent of Central Tax Cancellation of Registration in GST 12 GST FLYERS

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 8

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

shall, after conducting such enquiry as deemed fit, cancel the said registration.

ii. The cancellation of registration under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the
Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, shall be deemed to
be a cancellation of registration under Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 iii. In the event, the

Superintendent of Central Tax has reasons to believe that the registration of a person
is liable to be cancelled, a notice to such person in FORM GST REG-17, requiring him
to show cause, within a period of seven working days from the date of the service of
such notice, as to why his registration shall not be cancelled; will be issued.

iv. The reply to the show cause notice issued has to be furnished by the registered
person in FORM REG- 18 within a period of seven working days.

iv. In case the reply to the show cause notice is found to be satisfactory, the
Superintendent of Central Tax will drop the proceedings and pass an order in FORM
GST REG -20.

v. However, when the person who has submitted an application for cancellation of his
registration is no longer liable to be registered or his registration is liable to be
cancelled, the Superintendent of Central Tax will issue an order in FORM GST
REG-19, within a period of thirty days from the date of application or, as the case may
be, the date of the reply to the show cause issued, cancel the registration, with effect
from a date to be determined by him and notify the taxable person, directing him to
pay arrears of any tax, interest or penalty.

vi. The registered person whose registration is cancelled shall pay an amount, by way
of debit in the electronic credit ledger or electronic cash ledger, equivalent to the
credit of input tax in respect of inputs held in stock and inputs contained in
semi-finished or finished goods held in stock or capital goods or plant and machinery
on the day immediately preceding the date of such cancellation or the output tax
payable on such goods, whichever is higher.

vii. In case of capital goods or plant and machinery, the taxable person shall pay an
amount equal to the input tax credit taken on the said capital goods or plant and
machinery, reduced by such percentage points as may be prescribed or the tax on the
transaction value of such capital goods or plant and machinery under section 15,
whichever is higher.

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 viii. The cancellation of

registration shall not affect the liability of the person to pay tax and other dues for
any period prior to the date of cancellation whether or not such tax and other dues
are determined before or after the date of cancellation.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 9

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

9.3 At the same time, the statute also provides for revocation of cancellation:

i. When the registration has been cancelled by the Proper Officer (Superintendent of
Central Tax) on his own motion and not on the basis of an application ,then the
registered person, whose registration has been cancelled, can submit an application
for revocation of cancellation of registration, in FORM GST REG-21, to the Proper
Officer (Assistant or Deputy Commissioners of Central Tax), within a period of thirty
days from the date of the service of the order of cancellation of registration at the
common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the
Commissioner:

ii. However, if the registration has been cancelled for failure to furnish returns,
application for revocation shall be filed, only after such returns are furnished and any
amount due as tax, in terms of such returns, has been paid along with any amount
payable towards interest, penalty and late fee in respect of the said returns.

iii. On examination of the application if the Proper Officer (Assistant or Deputy

Commissioners of Central Tax) is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that
there are sufficient grounds for revocation of cancellation of registration, then he
shall revoke the cancellation of registration by an order in FORM GST REG-22 within
a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the application and
communicate the same to the applicant.

iv. However, if on examination of the application for revocation, if the Proper Officer (Assistant or
Deputy Commissioners of Central Tax) is not satisfied then he will issue a notice in FORM GST
REG-23 requiring the applicant to show cause as to why the application submitted for revocation
should not be rejected and the applicant has to furnish the reply within a period of seven
C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 working days from the date of the service of
the notice in FORM GST REG24.

v. Upon receipt of the information or clarification in FORM GST REG-24, the Proper Officer
(Assistant or Deputy Commissioners of Central Tax) shall dispose of the application within a period
of thirty days from the date of the receipt of such information or clarification from the applicant. In
case the information or clarification provided is satisfactory, the Proper Officer (Assistant or Deputy
Commissioners of Central Tax) shall dispose the application as per para (iii) above. In case it is not
satisfactory the applicant- Cancellation of Registration in GST 16 GST FLYERS will be mandatorily
given an opportunity of being heard, after which the Proper Officer (Assistant or Deputy
Commissioners of Central Tax) after recording the reasons in writing may by an order in FORM GST
REG- 05, reject the application for revocation of cancellation of registration and communicate the
same to the applicant.

vi. The revocation of cancellation of registration under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the
Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a revocation
of cancellation of registration under Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 10

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

10. Thus, upon appreciation of the scheme of Act, where specific forms have been prescribed at each
stage right from registration, cancellation and revocation of cancellation of registration, the same
are to be strictly adhered too. At the same time, it is equally important that the Proper Officer
empowered under the said Act adheres to the principles of natural justice.

11. At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of
the order and non communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of
hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice. This Court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter
referred to.

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 The necessity of giving reason by a body or

authority in support of its decision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several
cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders
and quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred
and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of the Supreme Court in
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCR

45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District
Collector Raigad, (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Grouop Housing Society
Limited, (2010) 13 SCC 336; Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9
SCC 496; Abdul Ghaffar v. State of Bihar, (2008) 3 SCC 258, has expanded the horizon of natural
justice and reasons have been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding
that reasons are heart and soul of the order. The absence of reasons renders an order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when it is subject to appeal/revision. It is to be noted that in
the case of Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
after considering various judgments formulated certain principles which are set out below:

"a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice

that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary

exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED:
24/02/2022 even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on
relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making

process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 11

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

by administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that
reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges
and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose
which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively
considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery
system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and

transparency.

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision

making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful
to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of

reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making
process.

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of
judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and
decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny
(See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review
731-737);.

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of
fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of
human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19
EHRR 553 at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405,
wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights
which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial
decision."

C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 o. In all common law jurisdictions

judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of
law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due
Process".

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 12

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

Thus, the position of law that emerges from the decisions mentioned above, is that assignment of
reasons is imperative in nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the reason
which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons must be the result of independent
re-appreciation of evidence adduced and documents produced in the case.

12. At this stage it would be germane to refer to observations made by the Andha Pradesh High
Court in the case of MRF Mazdoor Sangh vs. The Commissioner of Labour & Others , reported in
2014 (3) ALT 265, MANU/AP/1685/2013, wherein the matter of cancellation of registration of trade
union, it was held that :

"The show cause notice should reflect the jurisdictional facts based on which the final
order is proposed to be passed. The person proceeded against would then have an
opportunity to show cause that the authority had erroneously assumed existence of a
jurisdictional fact and, since the essential jurisdictional facts do not exist, the
authority does not have jurisdiction to decide the other issues."

12.1 We find that the aforesaid observation would squarely apply to the present facts of the case on
hand. Thus, the sum and substance of various judgments on the principles of natural justice is to the
effect that wherever an order is likely to result in civil consequences, though the statute or provision
of law, by itself, does not provide for an opportunity of hearing, the requirement of opportunity of
hearing has to be read into the provision.

13. It cannot be disputed that the writ applicant is liable to C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT
DATED: 24/02/2022 both civil and penal consequences pursuant to the impugned order of
cancellation of certificate of registration. In all the writ applications we could note from the tabular
details that the show cause notice though issued in the prescribed form does not elaborate the
reasons and the one line reason mentioned is nothing but the reproduction of either of the reasons
provide under rules regarding cancellation of registration. It appears from the materials on record
that the respondent no.2 issued a show-cause notice dated 18th September, 2018 in the Form GST
REG-17, calling upon the writ-applicant to show-cause as to why the registration under the GST
should not be cancelled. Such notice issued by the respondent no.2 is under Rule 22(1) of the
Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The notice dated 18th September, 2018 referred to
above reads as under :

"Form GST REG-17 [See Rule 22(1)] Reference Number : ZA240918027128D Date :
18/09/2018 To Registration no. (GSTIN/Unique ID) : 24AEXPA3306 SANJEEV
PREM AGGARWAL SURVEY NO.230, OPP. MARIYA BANK, B/H RANIPUR
VILLAGE,NAROL, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 382405.

Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration Whereas on the basis of

information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to
be cancelled for the following reasons :

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 13

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

1. Any Tax payer other than composite taxpayer has not filed returns for a continuous
period of six months.

You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days from the date of
service of this notice. You are hereby directed to appear before the undersigned on 27/09/2018 at
12:42.

If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the
appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex parte on the basis of available records
C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 and on merits.

Place : Gujarat Signature valid digitally signed by OS Goods and Service Tax Network 1.

Date: 2018.09.18 13.00.44"

13.1 To say the least, the respondent authority i.e. the Assistant/Deputy
Commissioner, State tax Officer ought to have atleast incorporated specific details to
the contents of the show cause. Any prudent person would fail to respond to such
show cause notice bereft of details thereby making the mechanism of issuing show
cause notice a mere formality and an eye wash.

14. We further notice that the respondent authority has failed to extend sufficient
opportunity of hearing before passing impugned order, inspite of specific request for
adjournment sought for. Even the impugned order is not only non speaking, but
cryptic in nature and the reason of cancellation not decipherable therefrom. Thus, on
all counts the respondent authority has failed to adhered to the aforesaid legal
position. We therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the basic Principles of
natural justice stand violated and the order needs to be quashed as it entails penal
and pecuniary consequences.

15. We would be failing in our duty if we do not draw the attention of the Appellate
Authority who has mechanically disposed off the appeals on the ground of delay. Apt
would be to revisit the observations of the Supreme Court with regard to reasonable
opportunity in the case of Union of India vs. Jesus Sales Corporation, reported in
1996 (4)SCC 69, wherein it is observed that a practice has developed holding that
even in the absence of a provision providing for an opportunity of
C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 hearing, such a provision is
required to be read into the Rules governing the case, particularly, when an order
being made is likely to have civil consequences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
emphasize up on the appellate court to have the approach tilting in favour of
providing fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing while dealing with condonation
of delay application in filing appeal. The relevant observation made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Jesus Sales Corporation (supra) in para 2, are as under :

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 14

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

"The Appellate authority may dispense with such deposit in its discretion. The
proviso relating to the condonation for delay in filing the appeal is more or less on the
pattern of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Some how, a practice has grown
throughout the country that before rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay in
filing the appeal or application, opportunities are given to the appellants or
petitioners, as the case may be, to be heard on the question whether such delay be
condoned. Opportunities to be heard are also the contesting respondents in such
appeals. In different statutes given to where power has been vested in the Appellate
authority to condone the delay in filing such appeals or applications, there are no
specific provisions in those statutes saying that before such delays are condoned the
appellants or the applicants shall be heard, but on basis of practice which has grown
during the years the courts and quasi- judicial authorities have been hearing the
appellants and applicants before dismissing such appeals or applications as barred by
limitations. It can be said that courts have read the requirements of hearing the
appellants or the applicants before dismissing their appeals or applications filed
beyond time on principle of natural justice, although the concerned statute does not
prescribe such requirement specifically."

15.1 The Appellate authority ought to have appreciated that the writ applicants at relevant point of
time i.e. in year 2017, applied for registration which request was favourably considered by the
authorities under the Act with a specific registration number allotted to the writ applicant. It was a
transitional phase, whereby the old CST Act was repealed and the new regime of CGST/ GGST has
come into force. With the different forms and procedure envisaged there under, any
C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 layman is bound to take time to adhered to
the norms. The Record reveals that subsequently the writ applicants have claim to have filed their
returns and have even deposited all dues. We further notice that such exercise has been undertaken
through the writ applicant's Tax Consultant who were professionally engaged to undertake such
task. Unfortunately, information of the returns for certain period not being uploaded, surfaced in
the year 2019 and the cause explained suggest that circumstances were beyond the writ applicant's
reach. In such peculiar circumstances, it was least expected of the Appellate authority to condone
the delay for filing appeal, more so, with the Onset of Pandemic Covid-19, preventing further follow
up action. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the authority ought to have condoned the delay
which unfortunately was not done, despite the writ applicant having made a fervent request for
condonation of delay in filing appeal seeking revocation of cancellation of registration.

16. When we inquired with the learned AGP appearing for the respondents as to why such vague
show cause notices and vague final orders, bereft of any material particulars therein are being
passed, the reply on behalf of the respondents was quite baffling. The learned AGP submitted that
on account of technical glitches in the portal, the department is finding it very difficult to upload the
show cause notice as well as the final order of cancellation of registration containing all the
necessary details and information therein. According to the learned AGP, it is in such circumstances
that the show cause notices and impugned orders without any details are being forwarded to the
dealers. This hardly can be a valid C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022
explanation for the purpose of issuing such vague show cause notices and vague final orders

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 15

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

cancelling the registration.

17. We direct that till the technical glitches are not cured, the department will henceforth issue show
cause notice in a physical form containing all the material particulars and information therein to
enable the dealer to effectively respond to the same. Such show cause notice in physical form shall
be dispatched to the dealer by the RPAD. In the same manner, the final order shall also be passed in
physical form containing all necessary reasons and the same shall be forwarded/communicated to
the dealer by way of RPAD. Any lapse in this regard, henceforth shall be viewed very strictly. We are
saying so because this Court has been fedded up with unnecessary litigation in this regard.

18. Our final conclusion are as under:

18.1. Until the Department is able to develop and upload an appropriate software in
the portal which would enable the Department to feed all the necessary information
and material particulars in the show cause notice as well as in the final order of
cancellation of registration that may be passed, the authority concerned shall issue an
appropriate show cause notice containing all the necessary details and information in
a physical form and forward the same to the dealer by RPAD. In the same manner,
when it comes to passing the final order, the same shall also be passed in a physical
form containing all the necessary information and particulars and shall be forwarded
to the dealer by RPAD.

18.2 Over a period of time, we have noticed in many matters C/SCA/18860/2021

JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 that the impugned order cancelling the
registration of a dealer travels beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Many
times, the dealer is taken by surprise when he gets to read in the order that the
authority has relied upon some inspection report or spot visit report etc. If the
authority wants to rely upon any particular piece of evidence then it owes a duty to
first bring it to the notice of the dealer so that if the dealer has anything to say in that
regard, he may do so. Even if the authority wants to rely on any documentary
evidence, the dealer should be first put to the notice of such documentary evidence
and only thereafter, it may be looked into.

18.3 The aforesaid may appear to be very trivial issues but, it assumes importance in
reducing the unnecessary litigation.

Our concern is that on account of procedural lapses, the High Court should not be flooded with writ
applications. The procedural aspects should be looked into by the authority concerned very
scrupulously and deligently. Why unnecessarily give any dealer a chance to make a complaint before
this Court when it could have been easily avoided by the department.

19. In the result, all the writ applications deserve to be allowed solely on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice and, accordingly, the writ applications are allowed. We quash and set
aside the respective show cause notices of all the writ applications, seeking cancellation of

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 16

 Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022

registration as well as the consequential respective impugned orders cancelling registration with
liberty to the respondent No. 2 to issue fresh notice with particulars of reasons incorporated with
details and thereafter to provide reasonable C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022
opportunity of hearing to the writ applicants, and to pass appropriate speaking orders on merits. It
is needless to mention that it shall be open for the writ applicants to respond to such notices by
filing objections / reply with necessary documents, if relied upon. We clarify that we have not gone
into merits of the case.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.

PARDIWALA)

1. My Esteemed Sister, Nisha Thakore, J. has just delivered a very important order as the directions
contained therein will go a long way in reducing the hardships and difficulties being caused to the
dealers on account of the technical bottlenecks or glitches in the GSTN Portal.

2. India is at the forefront so far as the Information Technology Supremacy is concerned. The GSTN
i.e. the Goods and Service Tax Network, is one of the most significant achievements in the history of
Indian Indirect Taxation. Since July, 2017, the implementation of GST in India is due to the GSTN.
However, still there are many issues which the GSTN need to address itself. There is always a scope
of improvement in the functioning and technical performance of the GSTN. Due compliance of the
laws of GST involves lot of technology and not just the law. Using the right technology for the right
process in an efficient manner will definitely reduce the hardships and difficulties, which the small
dealers may have to C/SCA/18860/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 face. It is extremely
important as on date to ensure that the technical glitches or bottlenecks in the portal are attended at
the earliest and taken care off.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) NEHA

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/10577071/ 17

24.11.2022.
p.b.
Sl. No.42.

W.P.A. 24558 of 2022

Maxxcab Wires & Cables Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Vs.
State Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation,
North Bengal Headquarter & Ors.

Mr. Himangshu Kr. Ray,

Mr. Subhasish Poddar.
……..for the petitioner.
Mr. A. Ray,
Mr. S. Mukherjee,
Mr. D. Ghosh,
Mr. D. Sahu.
………for the State.

By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the

impugned notice dated 27th October, 2022 being Annexure

P-7 to the writ petition and subsequent order dated 4th

November, 2022 under Section 129(3) of the WBGST Act,

on the ground that the same is a non-speaking order and

petitioner further submits that the impugned notice itself

is in total non-application of mind since the notice was

issued on 27th October, 2022 and petitioner was asked to

appear before the adjudicating authority on 3rd October,

2022 which had already been expired long back. Petitioner

also prays for release of the goods and vehicle in question,

on the ground that there was a breakdown of the vehicle

and the period was less than 24 hours.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, the impugned order dated 4th November, 2022 being

 2

Annexure P-9 to the writ petition is set aside and the

matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority

concerned to pass a fresh speaking order after giving an

opportunity of hearing as well as allowing the petitioner to

make fresh appropriate representation against the

aforesaid show-cause notice dated 27th October, 2022.

Such objection shall be filed by the petitioner within two

weeks from date and the respondent concerned shall

dispose the same within two weeks from the date of receipt

of such objection. Respondents shall also consider the

prayer for release of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner

in accordance with law.

With this observation and direction, this writ

petition being WPA 24558 of 2022 is disposed of.

(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

 Sona Metals vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2023

Sona Metals vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2023

Author: Vipul M. Pancholi

Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi

C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25221 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI : Sd/-

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI : Sd/-
=======================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be

allowed to see the judgment ? NO

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the

fair copy of the judgment ? NO

4 Whether this case involves a substantial

question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any NO
order made thereunder ?

=======================================================
SONA METALS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR MG NANAVATIY for NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-3
=======================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

Date : 15/06/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63793000/ 1

 Sona Metals vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2023

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT

DATED: 15/06/2023

1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Pranav Trivedi waives service of notice of rule for respondents.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has
prayed for following reliefs, "(a) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and or any other
appropriate writs, order or direction for calling on records of proceedings initiated pursuant to
show- cause notice dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-

1) as well as cancellation order dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) and after perusing the same be
pleased to quash and set aside show cause notice dated 01.07.2022 passed by Department and
cancellation order dated 15.07.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Chatak 19, Ahmedabad, and
be further pleased to direct restoration of registration bearing number 24FZSPM1286G1ZX;

(b) To pass an ex-parte ad interim order staying the operation, execution and implementation of the
show-cause notice dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) bearing reference no. ZA240722001120I
passed by Department and order dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) bearing reference no.
ZA240722078106N passed by Assistant Commissioner, Chatak 19, Ahmedabad, pending the
hearing and final disposal of present C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023
petition; and

(c) xxx xxx xxx."

3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. M.G. Nanavati for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Pranav
Trivedi for the respondents.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is registered under the Gujarat Goods & Service
Tax, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "GST Act" for short). It is stated that the concerned respondent
issued show cause notice dated 01.07.2022 in Form GST REG-17/31 by way of uploading the same
on the portal maintained by the department. The said show cause notice was issued under Section
29 of the GST Act read with Rule 22(1) of the GST Rules, 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that no
document either in the form of notice or any other document has been received by the petitioner at
his registered place of his business.

5. It is further stated by the petitioner that notice dated 01.07.2022 simply speaks that "In case,
Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of fact.".
Except aforesaid fact, notice does not mention any other information.

6. It is also stated that thereafter, the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 15.07.2022 for
cancellation of registration in Form GST REG-19 by way of uploading the same on portal
maintained by the department. It is further stated that the C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT
DATED: 15/06/2023 registration of the petitioner was being cancelled pursuant to the show cause
notice dated 30.06.2022, but in fact, the petitioner did not receive any such notice dated

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63793000/ 2

 Sona Metals vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2023

30.06.2022 as stated in the impugned order. The petitioner, therefore, has preferred the present
petition.

7. Learned advocate, Mr. Nanavati appearing for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice
dated 01.07.2022, copy of which is placed on record at Page No.17 of the compilation, is vague and
does not refer to any particular fact much less point out so as to enable the noticee to give its reply.
It is further submitted by learned advocate that even while passing impugned order passed by the
respondent no.3, reasons are not assigned by the concerned respondent. Leaned advocate has
referred to the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the respondent, copy of which is placed on record
at Page No.18 of the compilation. At this stage, it is also pointed out that the order dated 15.07.2022,
copy of which is placed on record at Page No.19 of the compilation, was also issued to the petitioner,
however in the said order also, the provision of law has been stated and except that, the respondent
has failed to assign any reason for cancellation of registration of the petitioner.

8. At this stage, learned advocate, Mr. Nanavati has referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf
of the respondent no.3 and the documents annexed C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED:
15/06/2023 with the said reply. Learned advocate has referred to the show cause notice dated
30.06.2022 issued by the concerned respondent, copy of which is placed on record at Page No.48 of
the compilation. It is submitted that in fact, the said notice dated 30.06.2022 is not received by the
petitioner and the respondent has not placed on record any material to suggest that the petitioner
has received the notice dated 30.06.2022. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the impugned
order passed by the concerned respondent be quashed and set aside.

9. Learned advocate, Mr. Nanavati has placed reliance upon the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by
this Court in Special Civil Application No.903/2023. Learned advocate has also placed reliance upon
the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by this Court in case of Aggrawal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs.
State of Gujarat & Ors. in Special Civil Application No.18860/2021 and allied matters. It is
submitted that in similar type of cases, this Court has quashed and set aside the show cause notice
issued by the concerned respondent authority. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that this petition
be allowed.

10. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr. Trivedi has opposed this petition and has referred to the
averments made in the affidavit-in-reply. It is mainly contended that the concerned respondent
issued notice dated 30.06.2022 to the petitioner, C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED:
15/06/2023 copy of which is placed on record at Page No.48 of the compilation. It is submitted that
in the said show cause notice, the respondent has provided necessary details to the petitioner so that
the petitioner can give reply to the said show cause notice. However, learned AGP, after verifying the
original file, has submitted that the said notice was not sent to the petitioner by RPAD, however, the
concerned officer has personally gone to the registered office of the petitioner but the premises of
the petitioner was found to be closed and, therefore, the said notice was affixed on the door of the
premises of the petitioner. It is further submitted that once the respondent authority has passed an
order under Section 29 of the GST Act, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the said order
by filing appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act and it is always open for the petitioner to take all
contentions before the appellate authority. Learned AGP has, therefore, urged that this petition may

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63793000/ 3

 Sona Metals vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2023

not be entertained.

11. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material placed on
record, it would emerge that the concerned respondent issued show cause notice dated 01.07.2022
to the petitioner, copy of which is placed on record at Page No.17 of the compilation. The said notice
read as under, "Form GST REG-17/31 [See Rule 22(1)/sub-rule (2A) of rule 21A]
C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023 Reference Number:ZA240722001120I Date
:01/07/2022 To Registration Number (GSTIN/Unique ID):24FZSPM1286G1ZL MANSURI ALFEX
F-304, SUMEL 8 OLD BHARAT BOBBIN MILL, NR AJIT MILL CHAR RASTA, RAKHIAL,
AHMEDABAD, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,380023 Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration
Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it appears that your registration
is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons:

1 In case, Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or

suppression of facts.

You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days from the date of
service of this notice.

If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the
appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex parte on the basis of available records and on
merits.

Please note that your registration stands suspended with effect from 01/07/2022 Place : Gujarat
Date : 01/07/2022 Date: 2022.07.01, 01:17:21 IST"

12. In similar type of cases, this Court has considered such type of show cause notice, which was
issued for cancellation of registration and this Court, after considering the decision rendered in case
of Aggrawal Dyeing (supra), has allowed the writ petition being Special Civil Application
No.903/2022 by an order dated 07.06.2023. This Court in the said order has observed in Paragraph
Nos.9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 as C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023 under, "[9] The
respondent authorities issued impugned show-cause notice dated 06.01.2023 which reads as under:

"Form GST REG-17 [See Rule 22(1)/sub-rule (2A) of rule 21A] Reference
Number:ZA2401230353816 Date :06/01/2023 To Registration Number
(GSTIN/Unique ID):24HSVPS8030J1ZX BALVINDER SINGH JAY BAJRANG CO
OP HOS SOC, SHOP NO2, NR SHASHTRI STEDIUM, STEDIUM ROAD,
Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,380015 Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of
Registration Whereas on the basis of information which has come to my notice, it
appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reasons:

1 In case, Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or

suppression of facts.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63793000/ 4

 Sona Metals vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2023

You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days from the date of
service of this notice.

You are hereby directed to appear before the undersigned on 13/01/2023 at 01:00 PM.

If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the
appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex parte on the basis of available records and on
merits.

C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023 Please note that your registration stands
suspended with effect from 06/01/2023 Place : Gujarat Date : 06/01/2023 Signature Not Verified
Date: 2023.01.06, 15:31:49 IST [10] From the aforesaid show-cause notice, it is clear that the
respondents have not provided in details to the petitioner, how the petitioner has committed fraud,
wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; while obtaining the registration, no documents were
supplied to the petitioner alongwith the said show-cause notice.

[11] This Court has considered in the similar type of case of Aggrawal Dyeing (supra) and observed
in para 13.1 and 16 as under:-

"13.1 To say the least, the respondent authority i.e. the Assistant/ Deputy
Commissioner, State tax Officer ought to have atleast incorporated specific details to
the contents of the show cause. Any prudent person would fail to respond to such
show cause notice bereft of details thereby making the mechanism of issuing show
cause notice a mere formality and an eye wash.

16. When we inquired with the learned AGP appearing for the respondents as to why
such vague show cause notices and vague final orders, bereft of any material
particulars therein are being passed, the reply on behalf of the respondents was quite
baffling. The learned AGP submitted that on account of technical glitches in the
portal, the department is finding it very difficult to upload the show cause notice as
well as the final order of cancellation of C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED:
15/06/2023 registration containing all the necessary details and information therein.
According to the learned AGP, it is in such circumstances that the show cause notices
and impugned orders without any details are being forwarded to the dealers. This
hardly can be a valid explanation for the purpose of issuing such vague show cause
notices and vague final orders cancelling the registration."

[12] In Special Civil Application No.11262 of 2020, the Division Bench of this Court has considered
the similar type of show-cause notice and observed in paras 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 as under:-

"2. Mr. Meena is the signatory of the show cause notice as also the impugned order of
cancellation both of which are assailed in the writ petition. We have directed for the
appearance of Mr. Meena upon perusal of the show cause notice dated 20.07.2020
(Annexure-H to the petition). Perusal of the same indicates that to such show cause

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63793000/ 5

 Sona Metals vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2023

notice no response can be given by any assessee. The show cause notice is as vague as
possible and does not refer to any particular facts much less point out so as to enable
the noticee to give his reply. The contents of the show cause notice dated 20.07.2020
are reproduced below:

"Form GST REG-17 [See Rule 22(1)] Reference Number:ZA2407200794641 Date

:20/07/2020 To INDRESH KUMAR 3, SOMNATH SHOPPING CENTER,
C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023 SMRUTI MANDIR CANAL
ROAD GHODASAR, AHMEDABAD, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,380050 Show Cause
Notice for Cancellation of Registration Whereas on the basis of information which
has come to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable to be cancelled for
the following reasons:

1 In case, Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or

suppression of facts.

You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the notice within seven working days
from the date of service of this notice. If you fail to furnish a reply within the
stipulated date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time,
the case will be decided ex parte on the basis of available records and on merits.

Place : Gujarat
Date : 20/07/2020 Prem Raj Meena
Superintendent
Ghatak 18(Ahmedabad):
Range-5:Division-2:Gujarat"

3 According to learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dave, without fixing a date for
hearing and without waiting for any reply to be filed by the petitioner, the
cancellation order was passed on 30.07.2020 whereby registration of the petitioners
with GST department was cancelled. Although the cancellation order refers to a reply
submitted by the petitioner and also about personal hearing, but according to Mr.
Dave neither he had submitted any reply nor afforded any opportunity of hearing.
This fact is not disputed by Mr.Bhatt.

4 Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has sought to explain that some
discrepancy occurred on account of some technical glitch in the system (on-line
C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023 portal). The reply filed by the
respondent is on record.

5 We are not entering into the merits of the impugned order as we are convinced that
the show cause notice itself cannot be sustained for the reasons already recorded
above. Therefore, the cancellation of registration resulting from the said show-cause

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63793000/ 6

 Sona Metals vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2023

notice also cannot be sustained.

6 For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned show cause notice dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure-H) and the impugned
cancellation order dated 30.07.2020 (Annexure-I) are hereby quashed. With respect
to the other consequence that may follow, the parties would be at liberty to take
appropriate steps. Mr. Bhatt made request that the Court may grant liberty to
proceed afresh. We are not inclined to pass such order, but we only observe that if
law permits, the respondent No.2 may proceed afresh in accordance with law."

[13] From the aforesaid order, it reveals that, in the said case as similar type of contentions were
raised on behalf of the respondent. However, this Court has quashed and set aside the similar type
of show-cause notice issued to the concerned petitioner for cancellation of registration. We are of
the view that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid order passed by this Court,
therefore, the impugned show-cause notice deserves to be quashed and set aside on the similar
grounds."

13. In the present case also, as observed hereinabove, the show cause notice dated 01.07.2022 issued
by the respondent to the petitioner is very vague and cryptic. Therefore, it was difficult for the
C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023 petitioner to give any reply to the said show
cause notice. We are of the view that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the
aforesaid decision.

14. However, it is the case of the respondent that prior to issuance of the show cause notice dated
01.07.2022, in fact, the respondent issued notice on 30.06.2022, copy of which is placed on record
at Page No.48 of the compilation. It is contended by learned AGP that in the said notice, specific
details are provided to the petitioner so that the petitioner can give reply. However, it is not in
dispute that the said show cause notice was not served by RPAD and it is the specific case of the
petitioner that the notice dated 30.06.2022 has not been received by the petitioner.

15. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.3 has, thereafter, passed an order on
15.07.2022. We have gone through the said order, copy of which is placed on record at Page No.18 of
the compilation. Thereafter, another order dated 15.07.2022 was also provide, copy of which is
placed on record at Page No.19 of the compilation. We are of the view that in both the aforesaid
orders, the concerned respondent has failed to provide specific reasons for cancellation of
registration under Section 29(2) of the GST Act.

16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that both the
show cause notice as well as the order dated C/SCA/25221/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/06/2023
15.07.2022 deserve to be quashed and set aside.

17. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The show cause notice dated 01.07.2022 and the order
dated 15.07.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondent
authorities to issue fresh notice with particulars of reasons incorporated with details and thereafter

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63793000/ 7

 Sona Metals vs State Of Gujarat on 15 June, 2023

to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate order in
accordance with law. The concerned respondent is hereby directed to restore the registration of the
petitioner forthwith. It is needless to mention that it shall be open for the petitioner to respond to
such notice by filing objection/reply with necessary documents, if relied upon. It is clarified that this
Court has not examined the merits of the case of the parties. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.

Sd/-

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Sd/-

(D. M. DESAI, J.) Gautam

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/63793000/ 8

 R A Metal Finishers Private Limited vs The State Tax Officer on 3 December, 2024

R A Metal Finishers Private Limited vs The State Tax Officer on 3

December, 2024

Author: P.T. Asha

Bench: P.T. Asha

W.P.No.36706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.12.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

W.P.No.36706 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.39607 & 39608 of 2024

R A Metal Finishers Private Limited

Represented by its Director,
Mr. Harikrishnan Raja, No.8,
Harivardhan Street, Santhosh Nagar,
Palavakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 041
... Petiti
Vs.
The State Tax Officer,
(also Known as Commercial Tax Officer,)
Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle,
Station: Room No.242, Integrated Commercial Taxes &
Registration Department Building,
Nandanam, Chennai - 600035.
...Respond

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari call for the records on
of the Respondent herein in GSTIN 33AAGCR6798D1Z3/ 2019-20 dated
06.08.2024 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : M/s.A.N.R..Jayaprathap

For Respondents : M/s.TNC.Kaushik, AGP(T)

for sole respondent

1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/106551219/ 1

 R A Metal Finishers Private Limited vs The State Tax Officer on 3 December, 2024

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed to call for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in GSTIN
33AAGCR6798D1Z3/2019-20 dated 06.08.2024 and quash the same.

2. The facts that has given rise to the above Writ Petition is hereinbelow set out:-

2(i). The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred as the “TNGST Act”)/Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”)/Integrated
Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred as the “IGST Act”) on the file of the
State Jurisdiction Officer having registration in GSTIN.33AAGCR6798D1Z3.

2(ii).The petitioner would submit that he complies with the applicable provisions of
the Act and the Goods and Services Tax Rule, 2017 (hereafter after referred to as the
“Rules”). The petitioner would submit that the input tax credits available on
purchases are being adjusted on the output sales. The petitioner would further
submit that he has been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis very regular in the filing of
GST returns and has been making payments without any default.

2(iii).The petitioner would submit that without serving an intimation in FORM

GSTASMT-10, the respondent has directly issued a show cause notice in FORM GRT
DRC-01 dated 30.05.2024. The allegation was that there was a mismatch between
FORM GSTR2A and GSTR3B. The petitioner had immediately sent a reply to this
show cause notice, annexing a detailed reconciliation report. However, the
petitioner's explanation was not considered and by the impugned order the
respondent had confirmed the demand notice together with interest at 18% as
envisaged in Section 50 of the TNGST Act 2017. The total abstract of the proposed
demand was a sum of Rs.7,25,094/-. The petitioner would question the impugned
order on the ground that there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice
in as much as his explanation has not been considered and the same has been
rejected with a one line order which is hereinbelow extracted:-

“ Taxpayer reply was not accepted. Hence the above proposal is confirmed”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2(iv).The petitioner would submit that they have
sufficient balance of the input tax credit after utilising the same towards IGST, CGST
and TNGST. Therefore, the very demand and the impugned order passed is in gross
violation of principles of natural justice.

3.Heard the counsels on either side.

4.A perusal of the records would indicate that the respondent had issued a summary of show cause
notice dated 31.05.2024 to the petitioner for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 under Section
73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, stating that for the period April 2019 and March 2020 there was a due of
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/106551219/ 2
 R A Metal Finishers Private Limited vs The State Tax Officer on 3 December, 2024

Rs.3,79,929/- each towards SGST and CGST and had called the petitioner for enquiry on
30.06.2024.

5.The petitioner had not responded to the said notice and therefore a reminder was sent on
06.07.2024. The petitioner had sent a reply to the show cause notice on 06.07.2024 through online
portal clearly stating that according to the comparison sheet under the GST system between GSTR
3B Vs. GSTR-2A, the petitioner had excess credit of Rs.1,40,684/-. He had also attached the
reconciliation report. A perusal of the reconciliation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis report clearly
shows that after adjusting the amount towards IGST, CGST and SGST, an amount of Rs.1,40,684/-
was still available. This reconciliation statement has not been taken note of by the respondent. On
the contrary, the respondent would simply state that the reply is not accepted. The reason for not
accepting the explanation has not been spelt out in the impugned order. The impugned order is a
one line non-speaking order. Such an order cannot be sustained.

6.Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted
back to the respondent to consider the afresh the demand in the show cause notice and the reply.
The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

03.12.2024 (shr) Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To The State Tax Officer, (also Known as Commercial Tax
Officer,) Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle, Station: Room No.242, Integrated Commercial Taxes &
Registration Department Building, Nandanam, Chennai - 600035.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis P.T. ASHA. J., (shr) and W.M.P.Nos.39607 & 39608 of 2024
03.12.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/106551219/ 3

 C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8990 of 2023

==========================================================
OM TRADING
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
UCHIT N SHETH(7336) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR.PRANAV TRIVEDI AGP NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s)
No. 1,2
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

Date : 21/06/2023
ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

[1] This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, in which, the petitioners have

prayed that the order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the

respondent authority as well as the impugned Show-cause

notice dated 24.11.2021 issued by the respondent

authority may be quashed and set aside.

[2] Looking to the issues involved in the present

petition, learned advocates appearing for the parties have

jointly requested that this petition may be taken up for

Page 1 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

 C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

final disposal at the admission stage.

[3] Hence, Rule. Learned AGP Mr.Pranav Trivedi

waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of qua

respondents.

[4] Heard Mr.Uchit Sheth learned advocate for the

petitioners and Mr.Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the respondents.

[5] Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the petitioners are engaged in the

business of trading in base oil and they are duly

registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and registration

certificate has been issued by the respondent authority to

the petitioner.

5.1 It is submitted that the petitioners purchased

and sold goods in the usual course of business and the

transactions were reflected in the returns. At this stage,

it is pointed out that respondent no.2 - authority

uploaded Show-cause notice dated 24.11.2021 on the GST

portal proposing to cancel their registration certificate

Page 2 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

 C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

under the Act by simply stating that the registration

was obtained by means of fraud, willful misstatement or

suppression of facts. Learned advocate for the petitioners

has referred copy of the said Show-cause notice which is

placed on record at page no.24 of the compilation.

5.2 It is submitted that the petitioners were not

logging on GST portal and therefore, they were not

aware about the issuance of the said notice, even,

petitioners did not receive any documents in support of

the said notice. It is also grievance of the petitioners

that the respondent no.2 - authority passed the

impugned order dated 13.12.2021, by which, the

registration of the petitioners has been canceled.

Therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present

petition.

[6] Learned advocate for the petitioners would

mainly submit that the issues involved in the present

petition is covered by the decision of this Court rendered

in the case of Aggrawal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs.

State of Gujarat & Ors passed in Special Civil Application

No.18860 of 2021 decided on 24.02.2022 and allied

matters.

Page 3 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

 C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

6.1 At this stage, it is further submitted that this

Court has recently passed the order on 15.06.2023 in the

case of Sona Metals vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil

Application No.25221 of 2022 and once again, relying upon

the aforesaid decision rendered in the case of Aggrawal

Dyeing (supra) submitted that this Court has quashed and

set aside the Show-cause notice issued by the concerned

respondent. Therefore, he urges before this Court to

allow the present petition.

[7] On the other hand, Mr.Pranav Trivedi, learned

AGP for the respondents though tried to oppose this

petition, fairly submitted that on the basis of written

communication, no speaking order was passed at the

time of cancellation of registration. Therefore, if the

order passed by the authority is quashed and if

authority is permitted to start fresh proceedings in

accordance with law, then the said officer has no

objection. Such instruction is given by the In-charge

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Unit-92, Rajkot.

[8] We have considered the submissions canvassed

by the learned advocates for the parties and also

perused the materials placed on record.

Page 4 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

 C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

[9] In the present case, the respondent authority

issued Show-cause notice for cancellation of registration

dated 24.11.2021 which reads as under:-

“Form GST REG-17 /31

[See Rule 22(1)/sub-rule (2A) of rule 21A]

Reference Number:ZA241121083842T Date :24/11/2021

To
Registration Number (GSTIN/Unique ID):24CEOPP4487C1Z7
Hitendrabhai Batukbhai Pathak
Survey No.171 and 172, Plot No.31
Padavala, Ta.- Kotda Sangani,
Dist.-Rajkot,
Rajkot, Gujarat,360024.

Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration

Whereas on the basis of information which has come

to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable
to be cancelled for the following reasons:

1 In case, Registration has been obtained by means

of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts.

You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the

notice within seven working days from the date of
service of this notice.

If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated

date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the

Page 5 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

 C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex-

parte on the basis of available records and on merits.

Please note that your registration stands suspended

with effect from 24/11/2021.

Place : Gujarat
Date : 24/11/2021 Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DS GOODS AND SERVICES
TAX NETWORK (4)
Date: 2021.11.24, 17:45:28 IST

[10] Recently, this Court has passed the order in

the similar type of case of Sona Metals (supra) and

observed in para 12 as under:-

“12. In similar type of cases, this Court has considered

such type of show cause notice, which was issued for
cancellation of registration and this Court, after
considering the decision rendered in case of Aggrawal
Dyeing (supra), has allowed the writ petition being
Special Civil Application No.903/2022 by an order dated
07.06.2023. This Court in the said order has observed in
Paragraph Nos.9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 as under,

“[9] The respondent authorities issued impugned

show-cause notice dated 06.01.2023 which reads as
under:

“Form GST REG-17

[See Rule 22(1)/sub-rule (2A) of rule 21A]

Reference Number:ZA2401230353816
Date :06/01/2023

Page 6 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

To
Registration Number (GSTIN/Unique ID):24HSVPS8030J1ZX
BALVINDER SINGH
JAY BAJRANG CO OP HOS SOC,
SHOP NO2, NR SHASHTRI STEDIUM,
STEDIUM ROAD, Ahmedabad,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat,380015

Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration

Whereas on the basis of information which has come

to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable
to be cancelled for the following reasons:

1 In case, Registration has been obtained by means

of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts.

You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the

notice within seven working days from the date of
service of this notice.

You are hereby directed to appear before the

undersigned on 13/01/2023 at 01:00 PM.

If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated

date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the
appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex
parte on the basis of available records and on merits.

Please note that your registration stands suspended

with effect from 06/01/2023

Place : Gujarat
Date : 06/01/2023 Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DS GOODS AND SERVICES
TAX NETWORK 07
Date: 2023.01.06, 15:31:49 IST

Page 7 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

[10] From the aforesaid show-cause notice, it is

clear that the respondents have not provided in details
to the petitioner, how the petitioner has committed
fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts;
while obtaining the registration, no documents were
supplied to the petitioner alongwith the said show-
cause notice.

[11] This Court has considered in the similar

type of case of Aggrawal Dyeing (supra) and observed
in para 13.1 and 16 as under:-

“13.1 To say the least, the respondent authority

i.e. the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, State tax
Officer ought to have atleast incorporated specific
details to the contents of the show cause. Any
prudent person would fail to respond to such
show cause notice bereft of details thereby
making the mechanism of issuing show cause
notice a mere formality and an eye wash.
16. When we inquired with the learned AGP
appearing for the respondents as to why such
vague show cause notices and vague final orders,
bereft of any material particulars therein are
being passed, the reply on behalf of the
respondents was quite baffling. The learned AGP
submitted that on account of technical glitches in
the portal, the department is finding it very
difficult to upload the show cause notice as well
as the final order of cancellation of registration
containing all the necessary details and
information therein. According to the learned
AGP, it is in such circumstances that the show
cause notices and impugned orders without any
details are being forwarded to the dealers. This
hardly can be a valid explanation for the
purpose of issuing such vague show cause notices
and vague final orders cancelling the

Page 8 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

registration.”

[12] In Special Civil Application No.11262 of

2020, the Division Bench of this Court has considered
the similar type of show-cause notice and observed in
paras 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 as under:-

“2. Mr. Meena is the signatory of the show

cause notice as also the impugned order of
cancellation both of which are assailed in the
writ petition. We have directed for the
appearance of Mr. Meena upon perusal of the
show cause notice dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure-H
to the petition). Perusal of the same indicates
that to such show cause notice no response can
be given by any assessee. The show cause notice
is as vague as possible and does not refer to
any particular facts much less point out so as to
enable the noticee to give his reply. The contents
of the show cause notice dated 20.07.2020 are
reproduced below:

“Form GST REG-17

[See Rule 22(1)]

Reference Number:ZA2407200794641
Date :20/07/2020

To
INDRESH KUMAR
3, SOMNATH SHOPPING CENTER,
SMRUTI MANDIR CANAL ROAD
GHODASAR, AHMEDABAD,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat,380050

Show Cause Notice for Cancellation of Registration

Whereas on the basis of information which has come

Page 9 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

to my notice, it appears that your registration is liable

to be cancelled for the following reasons:

1 In case, Registration has been obtained by means

of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts.
You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to the
notice within seven working days from the date of
service of this notice.
If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated
date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the
appointed date and time, the case will be decided ex
parte on the basis of available records and on merits.

Place : Gujarat
Date : 20/07/2020 Prem Raj Meena
Superintendent
Ghatak 18(Ahmedabad):
Range-5:Division-2:Gujarat”

3 According to learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.

Dave, without fixing a date for hearing and without
waiting for any reply to be filed by the petitioner, the
cancellation order was passed on 30.07.2020 whereby
registration of the petitioners with GST department
was cancelled. Although the cancellation order refers to
a reply submitted by the petitioner and also about
personal hearing, but according to Mr. Dave neither he
had submitted any reply nor afforded any opportunity
of hearing. This fact is not disputed by Mr.Bhatt.

4 Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

has sought to explain that some discrepancy occurred
on account of some technical glitch in the system (on-
line portal). The reply filed by the respondent is on
record.

5 We are not entering into the merits of the

impugned order as we are convinced that the show

Page 10 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

 C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

cause notice itself cannot be sustained for the reasons

already recorded above. Therefore, the cancellation of
registration resulting from the said show-cause notice
also cannot be sustained.

6 For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition

succeeds and is allowed. The impugned show cause
notice dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure-H) and the
impugned cancellation order dated 30.07.2020
(Annexure-I) are hereby quashed. With respect to the
other consequence that may follow, the parties would
be at liberty to take appropriate steps. Mr. Bhatt
made request that the Court may grant liberty to
proceed afresh. We are not inclined to pass such order,
but we only observe that if law permits, the
respondent No.2 may proceed afresh in accordance with
law.”

[13] From the aforesaid order, it reveals that,

in the said case as similar type of contentions were
raised on behalf of the respondent. However, this
Court has quashed and set aside the similar type of
show-cause notice issued to the concerned petitioner for
cancellation of registration. We are of the view that
the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid
order passed by this Court, therefore, the impugned
show-cause notice deserves to be quashed and set
aside on the similar grounds.”

[11] Even otherwise, in the present case, the

respondent authority has not disputed the fact that while

issuing Show-cause notice for cancellation of Registration,

necessary documents were not supplied and the notice is

cryptic. Therefore, it was not possible for the petitioners

to give reply to the said Show-cause notice. It is not in

Page 11 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

 C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

dispute that while passing the impugned order for

cancellation of registration, the respondent authority has

not assigned any reason and thus, the order passed by

the respondent authority is not a speaking order.

[12] In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

present case, we are of the view that both Show-cause

notice dated 24.11.2021 as well as the order dated

13.12.2021 deserve to be quashed and set aside.

[13] Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The

Show-cause notice dated 24.11.2021 as well as the order

dated 13.12.2021, are hereby quashed and set aside.

However, liberty is granted to the respondent authorities

to issue fresh notice with particulars of reasons

incorporated with details and thereafter to provide

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and

to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

13.1 The concerned respondent is hereby directed to

restore the registration of the petitioners forthwith.

13.2 It is needless to mention that it shall be open

for the petitioners to respond to such notice by filing

objection/reply with necessary documents, if relied upon.

Page 12 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

 C/SCA/8990/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2023

13.3 It is clarified that this Court has not examined

the merits of the case of the parties.

13.4 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ

Page 13 of 13

Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 01:08:22 IST 2023

 M/S.The Chennai Silks vs The Assistant Commissioner on 12 October, 2023

M/S.The Chennai Silks vs The Assistant Commissioner on 12

October, 2023

Author: Krishnan Ramasamy

Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy

W.P.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 12.10.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

W.P.No.29104 of 2023
and WMP No.28709 of 2023

M/s.The Chennai Silks,

No.74C, New Market Street,
Tirupur – 641 604
Rep.by its partner
Mr.K.Sivalingam ...
Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner

(ST) (FAC), Tirupur South
Assessment Circle, Tirupur ...R

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind

issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to t
order bearing Reference No.ZD330723013713Q dated 04.7.2023 based
on the written order GSTIN 33AAFFT0634FFT0634G1ZJ/2021-2022
dated 30.6.2023 passed by the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Ramesh
For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran
Government Advocate

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.N

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/159751507/ 1

 M/S.The Chennai Silks vs The Assistant Commissioner on 12 October, 2023

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent.

2. The petitioner firm is engaged in the business of trading of garments and other allied items in the
brand name of “The Chennai Silks” in the domestic market.

3. The respondent/Department issued an intimation in Form DRC- 01A dated 23.11.2021 with
regard to the ascertained tax liability under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act,
2017 (in short, the Act), wherein, several alleged defects were noticed by the Department and issues
were mainly concerned with reconciliation of returns and books, ITC verification with GSTR-2A
among other things, for which, the petitioner had replied on 17.1.2022. The respondent sent a
reminder DRC-01A on 10.3.2022. Thereafter, DRC-01 show cause notice dated 17.4.2023 was issued
and the personal hearing was fixed on 21.4.2023. In the said personal hearing, the respondent
recorded the statement of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis reply. According to the petitioner,
though the petitioner filed a reply and their reply was also recorded by the respondent, the
impugned order dated 04.7.2023 came to be issued without considering the reply and passed a
non-speaking order. Though, they have provided the opportunity of personal hearing and permitted
the petitioner to provide the reply, it is duty of the respondent to deal with the reply filed by the
petitioner while passing the impugned order. But, the reply filed by the petitioner has not been
taken into consideration and the respondent passed the non-speaking order. Hence, the above Writ
Petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent made a
formal objection, but fairly conceded that the reply filed by the petitioner has not been considered
by the respondent while passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the matter may be
remanded to the respondent for passing a fresh order after considering the reply filed by the
petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on
either side.

6. The impugned order was passed on 04.7.2023. Before passing the impugned order, it is admitted
by the learned counsel on either side that the petitioner was allowed to file a reply and the said reply
was filed on 17.1.2022 and a personal hearing was also provided on 21.4.2023. In the said personal
hearing, the entire reply has been recorded by the Assessing Officer. Though the respondent
received and recorded the entire reply at the time of personal hearing, while passing the impugned
order, unfortunately, the respondent has not at all dealt with the stand taken by the petitioner in
their reply. Apparently, the impugned order is a non speaking order and no doubt, the petitioner can
very well challenge the same before the Appellate authority by filing an appeal under Section 107 of
the Act. Under the said provision, the Appellate Authority can entertain the appeal and pass order
under Section 107(11) of the Act.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/159751507/ 2

 M/S.The Chennai Silks vs The Assistant Commissioner on 12 October, 2023

7. The learned counsel for the respondent also would contend that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Appellate Authority can play the role of the Assessing Officer and he can peruse the reply and
pass a detailed order and thereby, the petitioner will not be deprived of their rights.

8. Even though the petitioner is having appeal remedy before the Appellate Authority, but the
Appellate Authority is not conferred with the power to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer
for fresh consideration. Further, the petitioner is entitled to have two occasions of the matter to be
adjudicated by two Authorities, viz., the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority and thereby,
can avail two well considered opinion. In the present case, due to the failure on the part of the
respondent/Assessing Officer to consider the reply filed by the petitioner and deal with the same
while passing the impugned order, by which, the petitioner will deprive of their right to defend
before the Assessing Authority if the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority.

9. Though the Appellate Authority will have the power of the Assessing Officer to make assessment
by providing opportunity of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis personal hearing and by considering
the reply, the order to be passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be equated with the order that
would be passed by the Assessing Officer, who would pass orders after considering the
reply/objection and the evidence put forth by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice. That
apart, the assessee virtually would lose one well considered opinion of the Assessing Officer, for
which the assessee is entitled to legally under the provisions of law.

10. Therefore, the aspects, which are to be borne in mind by the respondent/Assessing Officer before
passing any assessment order is that the Assessing Officer, while issuing show cause notice shall
provide sufficient time for the assessee to file their reply/objection, minimum of 21 days, unless and
otherwise any specific time limit is fixed under the provisions of the Act; thereafter, shall afford an
opportunity of personal hearing; in case, if the assessee is in need of any documents, which forms
the basis for issuance of show cause notice, the same shall also be furnished to the assessee, as the
case may be, wherever, it is required; and after conducting a full-fledged enquiry, shall conclude the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis assessment proceedings, in which, the Assessing Officer has to
deal with the queries/points, (which the assessee would raise/putforth in the form of
reply/objections) in detail along with reasons for rejection of the reply, if any and thereafter, shall
pass final assessment order in accordance with law.

11. Unless and otherwise, the above aspects are not scrupulously followed, the same would pave a
way for the assessee to go on Appeal before the Appellate Authority and even in the Appeal, if the
assessee is unable to succeed, ultimately, it will come to the scrutiny of this Court and Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in which case, if the assessment order is set aside, the Department will loose it's
revenue. Therefore, once the assessee filed reply/objections pursuant to the show cause notice, it is
bounden duty of the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order, providing reasons for rejection of
the reply/objections raised by the the assessee. If any cryptic order is passed without touching upon
the queries/contentions of the assessee, ultimately, it would be fatal to the assessee and also cause
huge revenue loss to the revenue. Therefore, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis orders to be
passed by the Assessing Officer should always be a speaking order, safeguarding both the interest of
the assessee and the Revenue.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/159751507/ 3

 M/S.The Chennai Silks vs The Assistant Commissioner on 12 October, 2023

12. In the present case, the respondent/Assessing Officer, admittedly, has failed to consider the
reply/objections made by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice and passed a
non-speaking order. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court certain paragraphs
mentioned in the show cause notice were re-produced in the impugned order. Therefore, failure on
the part of the respondent/Assessing Officer to address the reply/objections of the
petitioner/assessee by a speaking order, would vitiate the impugned proceedings.

13. On this score, since the reply/objections made by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause
notice remained undecided, this Court feels that the petitioner is entitled to have a considered
opinion of the Assessing Officer after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner.
Thus, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and
remit the matter back for re-consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to pass a
detailed order after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner.

14. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. The matter is
remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration of its order, taking into consideration the reply
filed by the petitioner dated 17.1.2022. Needless to say that principles of natural justice shall be
followed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.

12.10.2023 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No rka Note :
Issue order copy on 01.11.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., rka
and 12.10.2023.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/159751507/ 4

 M/S. Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 January, 2023

M/S. Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31

January, 2023

Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Deepak Roshan, Aparesh Kumar Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(T) No. 1071 of 2022
With
W.P.(T) No. 1091 of 2022
M/s. Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises, through its Proprietor Mr. Mithilesh
Pandey ..... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.The Commissioner of State Taxes, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi.
3.Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (Admin), Jamshedpur Division,
Jamshedpur having its office at Near Old Civil Court, Tr. Old Gandhak
Road, Subarnrekha Link Road, Sakchi, P.O. & P.S.Sakchi Town,
Jamshedpur-1, District-East Singhbhum.
4.State Taxes Officer, Jamshedpur Circle, having his office at, Near Old
Civil Court, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Town-Jamshedpur-1, District-East
Singhbhum. ..... Respondents
---------

CORAM : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Pasari, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II.
---------

09/31.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both the writ applications relate to the same Assesse for different periods and the nature of the
challenge is also same. Therefore, they are being disposed of by the common order.

3. In W.P.(T) No. 1071 of 2022 which relates to tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 the impugned
summary of the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 (Annexure-4) dated 12.09.2018 and the
summary of the order in GST DRC-07 (Annexure-7) dated 14th May, 2019 are under challenge as
being in teeth of the provisions of Section 74 of the JGST Act, 2017 and Rule 142 (1)(a) of the JGST
Act, 2017 as also the decision rendered by this Court in the case of M/S NKAS Services Pvt. Ltd. vs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors., passed in W.P.(T) No. 2444 of 2021 judgment dated 06.10.2021

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/149234896/ 1

 M/S. Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 January, 2023

4. In W.P.(T) No. 1091 of 2022 which relates to tax period April 2018 to June 2018 the summary of
the show cause notice dated 12.09.2018 (Annexure-4) and the summary of the order contained in
the GST DRC-07 dated 14th May, 2019 (Annexure-7) are under challenge on the same grounds. The
proceedings against the petitioner in both the writ petitions were initiated on the basis of an
inspection carried under Section 67 of the JGST Act for irregular availment of Input Tax Credit
mainly on the ground that several consignment pertaining to invert supply as well as outward
supply, were either shown to have been transported through vehicle bearing no registration number,
or registration number bearing to car and 2 wheeler. Therefore they were in violation of Section
16(2)(b) of the JGST Act and CGST Act. Petitioner did submit a reply in DRC-06 in both the cases
explaining that the ITC have been properly claimed and good have been physically received by them.
However, rejecting their reply the impugned summary of the order dated 14th May, 2019 has been
passed under Section 74 (9) of the JGST Act imposing the demand of tax, interest and penalty upon
them. The rectification applications preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.2 under
Section 161 of the JGST Act was also dismissed by two separate orders both dated 18th October,
2021. Petitioners have assailed the summary of the show cause notice and the summary of the order
on the ground that they are in teeth of the provisions of Section 74 of the JGST Act. Summary of the
show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 is not a substitute of the proper show cause notice.
Participation in the proceedings will not cure the material irregularity in the foundation of the
proceedings. Petitioners contend that principles of natural justice have been violated. These
proceedings are therefore in teeth of the ratio rendered by this court in the case of M/S NKAS
Services Pvt. Ltd (Supra).

5. Mr. Rahul Saboo, leaned G.P.-II appearing on behalf of the State submits that the impugned
proceedings an issuance of summary of show cause notice and summary of the order in GST
DRC-07 have been defended inter alia on the ground that petitioner did participate in the
proceedings by furnishing a reply in Form GST DRC-06 before the adjudicating authority.
Therefore, there is no denial of principles of natural justice. The entire records including the relied
upon documents were also supplied to the petitioner. The prayer for application for rectification of
the error against the impugned order in both the cases as well as Form GST DRC-07 was rejected as
being without any merit.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on
record and the averments made in the respective affidavit, it appears that pursuant to the search
conducted by the respondents in the premises of the petitioner-company under Section 67 of the
JGST Act two summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 were issued, one for the period from
01.07.2017 to 13.8.2018 and another for the period from April, 2018 to June, 2018 under Section
74(1) of the JGST Act. It further transpires that the petitioner submitted a concise reply for both the
DRC-01 vide its letter dated 03.10.2018 and finally two separate orders, both dated 14.05.2019, were
passed. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed rectification application for both the period and fresh
rectified orders were passed in respect of both these tax periods.

7. Now the law is no more res-integra, inasmuch as, Rule 142(1)(a) of the JGST Rules provides that
the summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 should be issued "along with" the show cause
notice under Section 74(1). The word "along with" clearly indicates that in a given case show cause

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/149234896/ 2

 M/S. Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 January, 2023

notice as well as summary thereof both have to be issued. As per Rule 142(1)(a) of the JGST Rules,
the summary of show cause notice has to be issued electronically to keep track of the proceeding
initiated against the registered persona whereas a show cause notice need not necessarily be issued
electronically.

8. This Court in the case of M/S NKAS Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., passed in
W.P.(T) No. 2444 of 2021 in which one of us (Aparesh Kumar Singh J.) was the member, has taken
note of the said position of law and has categorically held that Summary of Show Cause Notice in
Form DRC-01 is not a substitute of show cause notice under Section 74(1). The relevant portion of
the judgment is set out below-

"13. A bare perusal of the provision indicates that in a case where it appears to a
proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or
where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud or any
willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the
person chargeable with tax, which has not been paid or has been short paid or to
whom refund has been erroneously made or who has wrongly availed or utilised
input tax credit requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount
specified in the notice along with the interest payable thereupon under Section 50
and a penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the notice. In contradistinction to the
provision under Section 73 of the Act under the same Chapter-XIV relating to
'Demands and Recovery', the ingredients of Section 74 of the Act require either of the
following ingredients to be satisfied for proceeding thereunder i.e. that the tax in
question has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or the ITC has been
wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud or any willful misstatement or
suppression of facts to evade tax.

14. A bare perusal of the impugned show-case notice creates a clear impression that it
is a notice issued in a format without even striking out any irrelevant portions and
without stating the contraventions committed by the petitioner i.e. whether its
actuated by reason of fraud or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts in
order to evade tax. Needless to say that the proceedings under Section 74 have a
serious connotation as they allege punitive consequences on account of fraud or any
willful misstatement or suppression of facts employed by the person chargeable with
tax. In absence of clear charges which the person so alleged is required to answer, the
noticee is bound to be denied proper opportunity to defend itself. This would entail
violation of principles of natural justice which is a well-recognized exception for
invocation of writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy. In this
regard, it is profitable to quote the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of Oryx
Fisheries P. Ltd. (supra) at para 24 to 27 wherein the opinion of the Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Khem Chand versus Union of India (AIR 1958
SC 300) has been relied upon as well :

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/149234896/ 3

 M/S. Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 January, 2023

"24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. It is
well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory
power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show-cause
proceeding. A show cause proceeding is meant to give the person proceeded against a
reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges
indicated in the notice.

25.Expressions like "a reasonable opportunity of making objection"

or "a reasonable opportunity of defence" have come up for consideration before this Court in the
context of several statutes. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India, of
course in the context of service jurisprudence, reiterated certain principles which are applicable in
the present case also.

26.S.R. Das, C.J. speaking for the unanimous Constitution Bench in Khem Chand held that the
concept of "reasonable opportunity"

includes various safeguards and one of them, in the words of the learned Chief
Justice, is:

"(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only
do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which
such charges are based;"

27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the
charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at
that stage the authority issuing the charge-sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront
him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant
case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show-cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias
and the subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony."

15. The Apex Court has held that the concept of reasonable opportunity includes various safeguards
and one of them is to afford opportunity to the person to deny his guilt and establish his innocence,
which he can only do if he is told what the charges leveled against him are and the allegations on
which such charges are based.

16. It is also true that acts of fraud or suppression are to be specifically pleaded so that it is clear and
explicit to the noticee to reply thereto effectively [See Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. CCE, (2007) 9 SCC
617 (para 14)]. Further in the case of CCE Vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. reported in (2007) 5
SCC 388 relied upon by the petitioner, the Apex Court at para- 14 of the judgment has held that if
the allegations in the show-cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary, vague, lack details
and/or unintelligible i.e. its sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity to
meet the allegations indicated in the show-cause notice. We do not agree with the contention of the
respondent that the notice ought not to be struck down if in substance it contains the matters which

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/149234896/ 4

 M/S. Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 January, 2023

a notice must contain. In order to proceed under the provisions of Section 74 of the Act, the specific
ingredients enumerated thereunder have to be clearly asserted in the notice so that the noticee has
an opportunity to explain and defend himself.

17. As observed herein above, the impugned notice completely lacks in fulfilling the ingredients of a
proper show-cause notice under Section 74 of the Act. Proceedings under Section 74 of the Act have
to be preceded by a proper show-cause notice. A summary of show-cause notice as issued in Form
GST DRC-01 in terms of Rule 142(1) of the JGST Rules, 2017 (Annexure-2 impugned herein) cannot
substitute the requirement of a proper show-cause notice. This court, however, is not inclined to be
drawn into the issue whether the requirement of issuance of Form GST ASMT-10 is a condition
precedent for invocation of Section 73 or 74 of the JGST Act for the purposes of deciding the instant
case. This Court finds that upon perusal of Annexure-2 which is the statutory form GST DRC-01
issued to the petitioner, although it has been mentioned that there is mismatch between GSTR-3B
and 2A, but that is not sufficient as the foundational allegation for issuance of notice under Section
74 is totally missing and the notice continues to be vague.

18. Since we are of the considered view that the impugned show cause notice as contained in
Annexure-1 does not fulfill the ingredients of a proper show-cause notice and thus amounts to
violation of principles of natural justice, the challenge is entertainable in exercise of writ jurisdiction
of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned notice at Annexure- 1 and the summary of show-cause
notice at Annexure- 2 in Form GST DRC-01 are quashed. However, since this Court has not gone
into the merits of the challenge, respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings from the
same stage in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today."

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled preposition of law, the foundation of the proceeding
in both the cases suffers from material irregularity and hence not sustainable being contrary to
Section 74(1) of the JGST Act; thus, the subsequent proceedings/impugned Orders cannot sanctify
the same. Though, the petitioner submitted their concise reply vide letter dated 03-10-2018; the
respondent State cannot take benefit of the said action as summary of show cause notice cannot be
considered as a show cause notice as mandated under Section 74(1) of the Act.

10. As we are of the considered view that the impugned show cause notice in both the cases does not
fulfill the ingredients of a proper show- cause notice and thus amounts to violation of principles of
natural justice, the challenge is maintainable in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, the summary of show-cause notices dated 12.09.2018 issued in Form GST DRC-01 at
Annexure-4 (in both cases), the orders dated 14.05.2019 issued under section 74(9) of JGST Act (in
both cases) and also the final orders dated 18.10.2021 passed after rectification at Annexure-09 (in
both cases), are hereby quashed and set aside.

However, since this Court has not gone into the merits of the challenge, respondents are at liberty to
initiate fresh proceedings from the same stage in accordance with law.

11. Consequently both these applications stands allowed. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating
authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law from the stage of issuance of proper show

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/149234896/ 5

 M/S. Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 January, 2023

cause notice under Section 74 (1) of the JGST Act.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/pramanik

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/149234896/ 6

 M/S Precitech Engineers vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 March, 2023

M/S Precitech Engineers vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14

March, 2023

Author: Pankaj Bhatia

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1583 of 2022

Petitioner :- M/S Precitech Engineers

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.12.2020 whereby the registration
of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dated 07.12.2022 whereby the appeal preferred
by the petitioner was dismissed as being beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

The Counsel for the petitioner argues that a show cause notice was sent to the petitioner on
26.11.2020 (Annexure no.2) whereby the petitioner was called within a period of seven working days
to submit a report and to appear for personal hearing. He further argues that no time and date was
fixed for personal hearing. He argues that the petitioner could not file reply which led to the passing
of the order dated 09.12.2020. He draws my attention to the order dated 09.12.2020 to argue that
the said order is completely non-speaking order. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said
order which too was dismissed on the ground that the same was filed beyond the prescribed period
of limitation.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/95929481/ 1
 M/S Precitech Engineers vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 March, 2023

In the light of the said submission, he argues that non-speaking order is neither contemplated under
the Act nor does it conform with the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He argues that in the
notice does not specify the time and the date which is arbitrary exercise of power. In support of this,
he places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Jaiprakash Thekedar vs
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and another; [(2023 U.P.T.C. (VOL.113) - 162]. He also relies
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Chandra Sain, Sharda Nagar, Lucknow through
its Proprietor Mr. Chandra Sain vs U.O.I. through Secretary Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and
others; [2022 U.P.T.C. (VOL.112) -1861].

Considering the fact that the order impugned cancelling the registration is prima facie without
application of mind which is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in the case of M/s
Chandra Sain (Supra) and the issue of non-fixation of time and date is squarely covered by the
judgment rendered in the case of M/s Jaiprakash Thekedar (Supra), the writ petition deserves to be
allowed on both the counts.

Accordingly, the orders impugned dated 09.12.2020 and 07.12.2022 are set aside. The writ petition
is allowed.

The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order, in accordance with
law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the
date of production of certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 14.3.2023 akverma

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/95929481/ 2

 M/S.Jay Jay Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd vs The State Tax Officer on 4 September, 2020

M/S.Jay Jay Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd vs The State Tax Officer on 4
September, 2020

Author: M.S. Ramesh

Bench: M.S. Ramesh

W.P.No.28003 to 28005 & 280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.09.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

W.P.No.28003 to 28005 & 28008 & 28011 of 2018

M/s.Jay Jay Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

rep. by its Managing Director,
No.10, KVP Layout, Alangadu,
Karuvampalayam,
Tirupur-641 604.
.. Petitioner in all

-Vs-

The State Tax Officer,

Special Circle-II,
Kongu Nagar, Tirupur.
..Respondent in all W.

PRAYER in W.P.No.28003 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article

226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorar
Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in the impugne
order No.LF1/2017-2018/JUL 2017/SPL CIRCLE II/KONGU NAGAR
(Form-GST-RFD-06) dated 04.06.2018 for July 2017, quash the same
to the extent of denial of Refund of input tax credit as it is in
the principles of natural justice and is contrary to Section 54(3)
CGST read with Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/33310590/ 1

 M/S.Jay Jay Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd vs The State Tax Officer on 4 September, 2020

http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.28003 to 28005 & 2

Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) and Rule 92(3) Central Goods and Services
Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 and direct the respondent to sanction the
refund claimed by the petitioner.
PRAYER in W.P.No.28004 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorar
Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in the impugne
order No.LF1/2017-2018/AUG 2017/SPL CIRCLE II/KONGU NAGAR
(Form-GST-RFD-06) dated 05.06.2018 for August 2017, quash the
same to the extent of denial of Refund of input tax credit as it i
violation the principles of natural justice and is contrary to Sec
54(3) of CGST read with Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) and Rule 92(3) Central Goods and
Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 and direct the respondent to sanct
the refund claimed by the petitioner.
PRAYER in W.P.No.28005 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorar
Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in the impugne
order No.LF1/2017-2018/SEP 2017/SPL CIRCLE II/KONGU NAGAR
(Form-GST-RFD-06) dated 06.06.2018 for September 2017, quash the
same to the extent of denial of Refund of input tax credit as it i
violation the principles of natural justice and is contrary to Sec
54(3) of CGST read with Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) and Rule 92(3) Central Goods and
Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 and direct the respondent to sanct
the refund claimed by the petitioner.
PRAYER in W.P.No.28008 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorar

http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.28003 to 28005 & 2

Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in the impugne

order No.LF1/2017-2018/OCT 2017/SPL CIRCLE II/KONGU NAGAR
(Form-GST-RFD-06) dated 08.06.2018 for October 2017, quash the
same to the extent of denial of Refund of input tax credit as it i
violation the principles of natural justice and is contrary to Sec
54(3) of CGST read with Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) and Rule 92(3) Central Goods and
Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 and direct the respondent to sanct
the refund claimed by the petitioner.
PRAYER in W.P.No.28011 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorar
Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in the impugne
order No.LF1/2017-2018/NOV 2017/SPL CIRCLE II/KONGU NAGAR
(Form-GST-RFD-06) dated 11.06.2018 for November 2017, quash the
same to the extent of denial of Refund of input tax credit as it i

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/33310590/ 2

 M/S.Jay Jay Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd vs The State Tax Officer on 4 September, 2020

violation the principles of natural justice and is contrary to Sec

54(3) of CGST read with Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) and Rule 92(3) Central Goods and
Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 and direct the respondent to sanct
the refund claimed by the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mrs.Radhika Chandrasekar

in all W.Ps

For Respondent : Mr.R.Swarnavel, GA (T)

in all W.Ps

http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.28003 to 28005 & 280

COMMON ORDER

With the consent of both the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up today and heard through video
conferencing.

2. The petitioner herein had exported Knitwear and Knitted Fabric, which amounts to zero-rated
supply and in terms of Section 16(3) of the IGST Act, 2017, had applied for refund of ITC under
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The applications were made for the periods of July, August,
September, October and November 2017. The petitioner's claim came to be rejected through five
impugned orders, which are challenged in these Writ Petitions. Since the issue involved in all the
Writ Petitions are identical in nature, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of, through a common
order.

3. Though the petitioner herein had raised several grounds challenging the impugned rejection
orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner had predominantly stressed upon the ground that the
rejection orders do not give reasons for inadmissibility of refund and therefore they are non
speaking orders. http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.28003 to 28005 & 28008 & 28011 of 2018

4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent had, in a cryptic
manner, rejected some of the proposals by stating that, as per Section 54 (8)(a), the ineligible goods
or services are not directly used for making zero-rated supply. Apart from this, there is absolutely no

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/33310590/ 3

 M/S.Jay Jay Mills (India) Pvt. Ltd vs The State Tax Officer on 4 September, 2020

other reasons adduced in the order.

5. It is a settled proposition of law that whenever an application of this nature is made, the statutory
authority are bound to consider the claim made and pass a reasoned order. In the present case, the
petitioner had made an application for refund under Section 54 of the Act and when the respondent
had issued notice to them for rejection of the ineligible goods and services of SGST, CGST and IGST,
they have given a detailed reply, objecting to the notices. All these objections were required to be
dealt with by the authority, before taking a final call, which is conspicuously absent. As such, the
order itself can be termed to be “a non speaking order” and therefore, are liable to be set aside.
However, if the respondent is granted an opportunity to pass fresh orders, after considering the
objections of the petitioner, the ends of justice could be secured.

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.28003 to 28005 & 28008 & 28011 of 2018

6. In the light of the above observations, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is at liberty to give fresh
objections, atleast within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
receipt of such objections, the respondent herein shall consider all the objections raised by the
petitioner and extend due opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate orders, in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of 60 days from the
date of receipt of the petitioner's objections. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No
costs.

04.09.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Order: Speaking/Non Speaking DP

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.28003 to 28005 & 28008 & 28011 of 2018 To The State Tax
Officer, Special Circle-II, Kongu Nagar, Tirupur.

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.28003 to 28005 & 28008 & 28011 of 2018 M.S.RAMESH.J, DP

W.P.No.28003 to 28005 & 28008 & 28011 of 2018 04.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/33310590/ 4

 M/S Durge Metals vs Appellate Authority And Joint ... on 10 May, 2023

M/S Durge Metals vs Appellate Authority And Joint ... on 10 May,

2023

Author: Sheel Nagu

Bench: Sheel Nagu, Hirdesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 6124 of 2020

BETWEEN:-
M/S DURGE METALS THR. ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI
GOPAL SHARAN TAMRAKAR S/O SHRI KRISHAN
SHARAN TAMRAKAR AGE 43 WARD N. 1001 SWAMI JU
MARG CHHATARUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KAPIL DUGGAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND JOINT
COMMISSIONER STATE TAX THR. SAGAR DIVISION
1.
(MADHYA PRADESH)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX

2. CHHATARPUR CIRCLE NEAR NAYA PANNA
NAKA,CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DARSHAN SONI - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for this day, JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU passed
the following:
ORDER

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Annexure P-2 dated
03.05.2019 and Annexure P-4 dated 30.08.2019 issued by Appellate Authority & Joint
Commissioner, State Tax, Sagar Division, respectively.

2. Principal ground of challenge to show cause notice, issued vide Annexure P-1 dated 28.03.2019
under Section 74(1) of GST Act, is that it does not satisfy the requirements of the said provision r/w

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/37190371/ 1

 M/S Durge Metals vs Appellate Authority And Joint ... on 10 May, 2023

Rule 142 of GST Rules.

3. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission and also final disposal.

4. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice (Annexure P-1) was
vague to the extent of not communicating the relevant information and material thereby disabling
the petitioner to respond to the same, and therefore, all consequential actions of passing of order
(Annexure R-2) and dismissal of appeal vide Annexure P-4 are vitiated in law.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of the Division Bench of
Jharkhand High Court (M/s Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises Vs. The State of Jharkhand & ors) including
WP(T) No.745/2021 rendered on 14th- 15th, September 2022, the facts and circumstances of which
are similar if not identical to the facts and circumstance prevailing herein. It is urged that show
cause notice in M/s Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises (supra) was identical to the show cause notice issued
in the present case vide Annexure P- 1 to the extent of being vague and cryptic.

4.2 The Jharkhand High Court has dealt with the provisions of Section 74 and 75 of GST Act as well
as Rule 142 of GST Rules. Relevant extract of the said judgment from the Jharkhand High Court is
reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

"9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled preposition of law, the foundation of
the proceeding in both the cases suffers from material irregularity and hence not
sustainable being contrary to Section 74(1) of the JGST Act; thus, the subsequent
proceedings/impugned Orders cannot sanctify the same.

Though, the petitioner submitted their concise reply vide letter dated 03.10.2018; the
respondent State cannot take benefit of the said action as summary of show cause
notice cannot be considered as a show cause notice as mandated under Section 74(1)
of the Act.

10. As we are of the considered view that the impugned show cause notice in both the
cases does not fulfill the ingredients of a proper show-cause notice and thus amounts
to violation of principles of natural justice, the challenge is maintainable in exercise
of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the summary of show-cause notices
dated 12.09.2018 issued in Form GST DRC-01 at Annexure-4 (in both cases), the
orders dated 14.05.2019 issued under section 74(9) of JGST Act (in both cases) and
also the final orders dated 18.10.2021 passed after rectification at Annexure-09 (in
both cases), are hereby quashed and set aside. However, since this Court has not gone
into the merits of the challenge, respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh
proceedings from the same stage in accordance with law.

11. Consequently both these applications stands allowed. The matter is remanded to
the adjudicating authority to pass afresh order in accordance with law from the stage
of issuance of proper show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the JGST Act."

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/37190371/ 2

 M/S Durge Metals vs Appellate Authority And Joint ... on 10 May, 2023

5. Learned counsel for State on the other hand by referring to Return as well as Additional Return,
submits that the reply dated 25.04.2019 to the show cause notice (Annexure P-1) gives an
impression that petitioner was not handicapped in giving any response to the show cause notice
being vague. Counsel for the State further points out that in the memo of appeal vide Annexure P-3,
the said ground of the show cause notice being vague was not raised.

6. It is true that the petitioner has not specifically raised the said ground before the appellate
authority but the fact remains that mandatory provisions of Section 74 of GST Act make it
incumbent upon the Revenue to ensure the show cause notice to be speaking enough to enable the
assessee to respond to the same.

6.1. Bare reading of the show cause notice (Annexure P-1) reveals that it neither contained the
material and information nor the statement containing details of ITC transaction under question.

7. Section 75 of GST Act is complete Code in itself which prescribes for various stages or
determination of wrongful utilization of ITC which is required to subject to affording of reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since the Statute itself prescribes for affording
reasonable opportunity, it is incumbent upon the Revenue to afford the same and any deficiency in
that regard vitiates the end result.

8. In view of above and the following decision of the Jharkhand High Court, this Court has no
manner of doubt that the very initiation of the proceedings by way of show cause notice (Annexure
P-1) is vitiated for the same being vague.

9. Accordingly, impugned orders Annexure P-2 dated 03.05.2019 and Annexure P-4 dated
30.08.2019 and the show cause notice are quashed with a liberty to the competent authority to
proceed in the matter in accordance with law, if so advised.

Writ petition stands allowed.

(Sheel Nagu)
Judge
vibha
VIBHA Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

PACHOR
PRADESH,

2.5.4.20=63ade6a8efe1a32216bb40cba34e4 ccadbecca47ba9fb326339dcb3a0aa8324a,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=ECF1C4B9939647F806353FB8 I
EEFB2CFCA8D6FDAF8339ACC3728BC3A5D1 ECA843, cn=VIBHA PACHORI Date: 2023.05.13
13:21:26 +05'30'

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/37190371/ 3

5/13/25, 4:12 PM M.P. Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No. 3796 OF 2022 (High Court - Gujarat) - TaxO

M.P. COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT IN R/SPECIAL

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3796 OF 2022 (HIGH COURT – GUJARAT)

Non speaking assessment order passed, without mentioning the relevant facts and
aspects of the matter not valid in law.

Facts: The petitioner preferred the Writ before the Hon’ble High Court praying for quashing and
setting aside Orders in Form GST-DRC-07 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax.
Division-3 and to decide the matter in accordance with law after considering the documents and
other evidence submitted by the Petitioner. Further it was also prayed to set aside the two Show
Cause Notices in Form GST DRC-01 and staying any coercive measures of recovery against the
petitioner pursuant to the impugned assessment orders.

Held:

The Hon’ble Court after considering the submission from the both sides and taking note of its
order dated 02.2022, wherein the ‘Hon’ble Court was inclined to quash and set aside both
the impugned orders and remit the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo
hearing with a direction to pass a speaking order. However, a request was made on behalf
of the respondents to issue a short notice.’, observed that it has been admitted on the behalf
of the respondents that both the assessment orders can be termed as nonspeaking orders.

Further it has been submitted on the behalf of the respondents that relevant facts and aspects
of the matter are not duly mentioned in the impugned orders.

The Hon’ble Court with the above observations disposed of the Writ petition by quashing and
setting aside the impugned assessment orders, and remitted the matter back to the Assistant
Commissioner to decide it afresh passing a reasoned order, dealing with every submission made by
the petitioner, within three months from the date of the order.

To read the complete judgment 2022 Taxo.online 249

Privacy - Terms

https://taxo.online/judgment/m-p-commodities-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-gujarat-in-r-special-civil-application-no-3796-of-2022/ 1/2
5/13/25, 4:12 PM M.P. Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No. 3796 OF 2022 (High Court - Gujarat) - TaxO

https://taxo.online/judgment/m-p-commodities-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-gujarat-in-r-special-civil-application-no-3796-of-2022/ 2/2
 Hindustan Construction Company Ltd vs The Union Of India on 15 December, 2022

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd vs The Union Of India on

15 December, 2022

Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Kuldeep Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12419/2022

Hindustan Contruction Company Ltd., Through Its Deputy

General Manager Taxation, Having Its Registered Office At
Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Anushakti Nagar, Rawatbhata,
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan 323303.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi
110 001.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Finance, Department Of Revenue, 1St Floor, Main
Building, Gate 2, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302005.
3. Joint Commissioner, Circle Nimbahera, Ac/cto Ward,
Rajasthan
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12416/2022
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., Through Its Deputy
General Manager Taxation, Having Its Registered Office At
Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Anushakti Nagar, Rawatbhata,
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan 323303.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi
110 001.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Finance, Department Of Revenue, 1St Floor, Main
Building, Gate 2, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302005.
3. Joint Commissioner, Circle Nimbahera, Ac/cto Ward,
Rajasthan
----Respondents

(Downloaded on 17/12/2022 at 12:19:47 AM)

(2 of 5) [CW-12419/2022]

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/141649674/ 1

 Hindustan Construction Company Ltd vs The Union Of India on 15 December, 2022

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Raichandani through VC

with Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG, with
Mr. Abhimanhyu Singh
Mr. Sunil Bhandari
Dr. Charu Mathur for Joint
Commissioner, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 15/12/2022 These writ petitions have been
preferred on behalf of the petitioner for challenging order No.43 dated 24.06.2022 imposing
interest and penalty (WP No.12419/2022) and Order No.42 dated 24.06.2022 imposing interest
(WP No.12416/2022) by the respondent Joint Commissioner, State GST, Circle Nimbaheda, on
account of delayed payment of tax.

The petitioner has challenged the final assessment order on the ground of non-adherence to the
principles of natural justice, violation of mandatory requirement of Section 75 of the CGST Act and
numerous other grounds.

Learned counsel Shri Raichandani, representing the petitioner, submitted that a detailed reply to
the show cause notice was furnished on behalf of the petitioner and a request was also made for
personal hearing before adjudication but the impugned orders were passed without providing
opportunity of hearing and without adverting to the petitioner's assertions made in the reply.

Considering these facts and circumstances, this Court, vide order dated 02.12.2022, issued a show
cause notice to the Joint (3 of 5) [CW-12419/2022] Commissioner and directed that he shall remain
present in the Court with the original dispatch register.

Today, the Joint Commissioner Shri Hitesh Trivedi is personally present in the Court with the
dispatch register. He is represented by counsel Dr. Charu Mathur through VC. The officer submitted
that the dispatch section of the office remains open on Saturdays and that the notice for personal
hearing was as a matter of fact duly dispatched and delivered to the petitioner's representative Shri
Satyanarayan Chechani on 18.06.20222, which was a Saturday. It was further pointed out that the
intimation to remain present for personal hearing was already recorded in the order-sheet dated
30.05.2022 and thus, no separate notice was even required to be issued. He submitted that there
was no malafide intention on his part and the impugned orders were passed ex parte as no-one
appeared on behalf of the petitioner to address on the show cause notice.

Learned counsel Shri Raichandai, appearing through VC, after having been apprised of the contents
of the original record, candidly conceded that the allegations of malafides attributed to the officer in
the oral submissions made before the Court on 02.12.2022 may be considered withdrawn. He,

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/141649674/ 2

 Hindustan Construction Company Ltd vs The Union Of India on 15 December, 2022

however, submitted that as the impugned orders are not speaking, the same deserved to be set aside
and petitioner may be given one opportunity to advance oral submissions qua the show cause
notices and the Joint Commissioner be directed to pass a fresh reasoned order thereupon after
considering the oral submissions and detailed reply filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Learned Counsel Dr. Mathur has advanced submissions in response to the show cause notice issued
to the officer vide order (4 of 5) [CW-12419/2022] dated 02.12.2022. She urged that as a matter of
fact, the petitioner had deposited the tax amount with delay and thus, the impugned notice dated
17.02.2021 was issued as direct legal consequence and the demand for interest and penalty
wasjustifiably raised on account of delayed payment of tax. She further submits that the officer acted
in bonafide discharge of duties and this fact is duly verified from the original record. The petitioner's
representative appeared before the officer on 30.05.2022 and submitted the reply and on the same
date, the representative was intimated the next date for personal hearing, i.e. 22.06.2022. However,
on that date, no-one appeared to represent the petitioner and hence, the impugned order came to be
passed ex parte.

Learned AAG Shri Shah submitted that as the petitioner's representative failed to appear before the
officer on 22.06.2022 in terms of the opportunity fore hearing provided vide note-sheet dated
30.05.2022, there was no requirement for the officer to have waited any further before passing the
impugned order. However, Shri Shah and Shri Sunil Bhandari, Advocate, representing the State
GST Department are not in a position to dispute the fact that the detailed written submissions filed
by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice were not adverted to in the impugned orders.

Having considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and after going through the pleadings of the
petitioner, reply filed on behalf of the respondents and the impugned orders, it is clear on the face of
the record that the officer did not consider the detailed reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner
while passing the impugned orders which are sketchy and non-speaking on the face (5 of 5)
[CW-12419/2022] of it. Thus, the impugned orders, apart from suffering from the vice of
non-application of mind to the reply of the party, also run in violation of mandatory requirement of
Section 75(6) of the CGST Act, which reads as below:-

"Section 75 - General provisions relating to determination of tax (1) xxx xxx (2) xxx
xxx (3) xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx (5) xxx xxx (6) The proper officer, in his order, shall set
out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision."

Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside.

The petitioner's representative shall appear before the Joint Commissioner on 22.12.2022,
whereafter, opportunity of hearing shall be provided and fresh order shall be passed assigning
proper reasons.

The show cause notice issued to the Joint Commissioner is discharged.

The writ petitions are allowed in these terms. No order as to the costs.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/141649674/ 3

 Hindustan Construction Company Ltd vs The Union Of India on 15 December, 2022

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

48-49-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/141649674/ 4