9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, M/s. Tirupati Trading Corporation Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Commissioner, Jharkhand State Goods & Service Tax, The Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, The Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes M/s. Kaushal Associates Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Commissioner, Jharkhand State Goods & Service Tax, The Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, West Circle, Ranchi M/s Binayaka Enterprises Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Commissioner, Jharkhand State Goods & Service Tax, The Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes, Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, West Circle, Ranchi M/s. Ashirwad Enterprises Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Commissioner, Jharkhand State Goods & Service Tax, The Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes, Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes M/s. Triveni Metal & Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Commissioner, Jharkhand State Goods & Service Tax , The Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes, Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner, State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears that in some cases, the State Tax Officer issued summary of show cause notice in FORM DRC-01 for the respective tax period under Section 74(1) of the JGST Act read with Rule 142 (1) of the JGST Rules along with summary of statement (Gist of accusations) in FORM GST DRC-02 under Section 74(1). The respective petitioners without prejudice filed concise reply in FORM GST DRC-06 disputing the claim. The State Tax Officer arbitrarily confirmed the demand vide summary of order in FORM GST DRC-07 under rule 142 (5) of the JGST Rules. The petitioner obtained certified copy of the order of assessment passed under Section 74 (9) of the JGST Act. In few other cases the State Taxes Officer, Dhanbad issued Summary of Order in FORM DRC 07 for the relevant tax period under Section 74 of the JGST Act read with Rule 142(5) of the JGST Rules without even issuing DRC-01. In the meantime, notices were also issued to the petitioner's bank in Form GST DRC 13 for payment of the demand amount lying in the credit of the petitioner's bank account. In few cases State Tax Officer issued notice in Form GST REG-17 under Rule 22(1) of the JGST Rules to show cause as to why registration of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h-2018 ------ ------ 07.05.2018, 07.05.2018& 05.05.2018 13.02.2019 -------- 6. Mr. Kartik Kurmy assisted by Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, and Ms. Sidhi Jalan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though primarily they argued that the Assessee can invoke jurisdiction of revisional authority under Section 108 of JGST Act, 2017 by way of furnishing information in the Form of application that the decision or order impugned is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and illegal and improper and has not taken into account of certain material facts, however, during course of the proceedings; Mr. Kurmi submits that leaving the question open that "whether an Assessee can invoke jurisdiction under Section 108 of the JGST Act or not" the petitioners seek to press the challenge on the alternative grounds that the entire summary of orders/ DRC-07 has been issued without following principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of law as enshrined in JGST Act and Rules. The subsequent argument of the petitioners can be summarized in following manner: - (i) No show cause notices has been issued under Section 74 of the JGST Act. Only DRC-01/DRC-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d accordingly the original application of the petitioner was returned. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners in order to avoid the statutory appeal, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by making the alternative prayer in the writ petition as against the orders which is not maintainable in the eyes of the law. It is evident from the statutory provision that only in order to avoid the payment of ten percent of the tax amount, being a precondition before filing the statutory appeal, the writ petitions have been preferred. 8. As a matter of fact, during course of proceedings, certified copy of original files were brought on record by the department pursuant to the order passed by this Court and it was found that in some cases only penalty order has been passed, in some cases no DRC-01 has been issued. In none of the cases show cause notices as per the provision of the Act has been issued. Though from record it appears that in few cases assessment order has been passed but it is not on record that whether the same has been served to the respective petitioners, inasmuch as, it is a specific case of the petitioners that assessment orders were never served to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odities Ltd. Vs. The State of Jharkhand &Ors,[W.P.(T) No. 3908 of 2020 with W.P.(T) No. 3909 of 2020] wherein this Court has held that opportunity of hearing is mandatory as per the Act itself. 10. In nut shell, demand of tax, interest and penalty has been confirmed without proper enquiry. Failure to issue the mandatory Show Cause Notices under Section 73/74 of the JGST Act along with summary Show Cause Notice under Rule 142(1) goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the entire proceeding and violates principles of natural justice. The law is now no more res integra that the show cause notice under Section 73/74 is mandatory in nature. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of M/s NKAS Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand [W.P.(T) No.2444 of 2021] and in the case of M/s NKAS Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand [W.P.(T) No.2659 of 2021]. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, leaving the question open that "whether an Assessee can invoke jurisdiction under Section 108 of the JGST Act or not" we hold that the summary of orders, adjudication orders and all subsequent orders issued by the department in all the aforesaid writ applications is bad in law, ina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
