2025 (5) TMI 1437 - HC - GST

Validity of issuance of FORM GST DRC-01 and FORM GST DRC-02 - Non compliance of the statutory requirements and legal provisions for issuance of SCN - No computation of tax interest and penalty in the said SCN - fake firms floated by two persons - several persons involved in a maze of transactions - disciplinary proceedings against the Chartered Accountant - seeking stay of the adjudication proceedings - HELD THAT - The DRC-02 refers to the Show Cause notice for the purposes of computation. When there are a several persons involved in a maze of transactions the fact that qua each of the noticees the exact amount is mentioned in the SCN is sufficient to inform the notice of the amount involved at the SCN stage. The adjudication being currently underway this Court is not inclined to entertain the same especially considering the nature of the allegations against the Petitioners. In writ jurisdiction the Court cannot go into the veracity of the statements of the Petitioners which have been recorded by the Department and examine as to whether the same are true or false as the same would be a matter of adjudication. The scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited which this Court is not inclined to exercise in this matter. Accordingly the petition is disposed of. Pending applications if any are also disposed of. The proceedings in respect of the Show Cause notice shall proceed in accordance with law.

2023 (12) TMI 558 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

Whether the issuance of FORM GST DRC-01 and FORM GST DRC-02 in the manner done complies with the statutory requirements and legal provisions governing such notices under the GST framework;
Whether the computation of tax, interest, and penalty in the Show Cause Notice and accompanying forms is legally valid and sufficiently clear to inform the Petitioners of the allegations and demands;
Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable at this stage of adjudication, particularly when serious allegations involving multiple parties and complex transactions are under investigation;
Whether the Court can entertain a challenge to the veracity of statements recorded by the tax authorities during the investigation in a writ petition seeking quashing of the Show Cause Notice.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Compliance of FORM GST DRC-01 and FORM GST DRC-02 with Legal Requirements

The legal framework governing the issuance of Show Cause Notices and related forms under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime requires that the noticee be clearly informed of the allegations, the tax/penalty demanded, and the basis of such demand. The Court examined the prior order dated 7th December 2023, which directed the proper officer to issue FORM GST DRC-01 and FORM GST DRC-02 electronically within a stipulated timeframe. The Petitioners contended that these forms were not issued in accordance with law and lacked proper computation of tax and penalty.

The Court scrutinized the contents of the forms, noting that FORM GST DRC-02 explicitly referenced the Show Cause Notice dated 2nd August 2023 (DIN 202308DNN100002174B) for the computation of tax, interest, and penalty. The forms contained a clear note stating that the tax and other dues had been imposed vide the Show Cause Notice, and the detailed particulars were annexed thereto. The Court observed that in cases involving multiple persons and complex transactions, it is sufficient that the exact amount demanded against each noticee is mentioned in the Show Cause Notice itself, with the forms serving as a reference thereto.

The Court reasoned that the statutory requirement to inform the noticee of the demand was met by the issuance of the Show Cause Notice with detailed annexures, and the forms' reference to the same was adequate. Therefore, the contention that the forms did not comply with law was rejected.

Computation of Tax, Interest, and Penalty

The Petitioners argued that the forms did not compute the tax and penalty against them specifically. The Court analyzed the structure of the forms and the accompanying Show Cause Notice, noting that the forms incorporated a summary table but relied on the Show Cause Notice for detailed computation. The Court held that this approach was legally permissible, especially given the complexity of the transactions and the involvement of multiple parties. The Court emphasized that the Show Cause Notice's annexures adequately informed the Petitioners of the amounts involved.

The Court further observed that the adjudication process was ongoing, and the Petitioners had ample opportunity to contest the computations during the hearings. Hence, the Court declined to interfere with the computation at this preliminary stage.

Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 at Adjudication Stage

The Court considered the scope and limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the context of tax adjudication proceedings. It noted that writ petitions challenging Show Cause Notices are generally entertained only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the notice is without jurisdiction, mala fide, or suffers from patent illegality.

Given the serious nature of the allegations against the Petitioners, including their arrest and involvement in a complex scheme involving fake firms and fraudulent invoices, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable at this stage. The Court underscored that the adjudication process was the appropriate forum to examine the facts, evidence, and legal issues.

Examination of Veracity of Statements Recorded by Authorities

The Petitioners sought to challenge the statements recorded by the tax authorities, which implicated them in the fraudulent activities. The Court clarified that the veracity of such statements is a matter of adjudication and cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that it was not the role of the writ court to delve into the truthfulness of evidence or statements at the preliminary stage of adjudication.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"When there are several persons involved in a maze of transactions, the fact that qua each of the noticees the exact amount is mentioned in the SCN is sufficient to inform the notice of the amount involved at the SCN stage."

"In writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot go into the veracity of the statements of the Petitioners which have been recorded by the Department and examine as to whether the same are true or false as the same would be a matter of adjudication."

"The scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited which this Court is not inclined to exercise in this matter."

Core principles established include:

The statutory requirement of informing the noticee of tax/penalty demands is satisfied by issuance of a Show Cause Notice with detailed annexures, even if the accompanying forms refer to the notice for computation;
Challenges to the computation of tax and penalty are to be addressed during adjudication and not at the writ petition stage;
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is circumscribed in tax matters and will not ordinarily entertain challenges to Show Cause Notices unless there is a patent illegality or jurisdictional defect;
The truthfulness or falsity of statements recorded during investigation is not a matter for the writ court but for adjudicatory authorities.

Final determinations on each issue were that the Petitioners' contentions regarding the invalidity of FORM GST DRC-01 and FORM GST DRC-02 were rejected; the writ petition was not maintainable at the adjudication stage; and the proceedings arising from the Show Cause Notice were to continue in accordance with law.

← Previous Next →