Order Date: 18 August 2022

Facts-

• The Petitioner, OM PRAKASH STORE is a registered dealer and is primarily engaged in the business of trading of Jaggary, Mahua and Krana Goods.
• An inspection was carried out in the premises of petitioner and pursuant certain discrepancies were identified in GSTR-3B return and auto populated GSTR-2A return for the period from 2017-18 and April, 2018 to June, 2019. 
• Summons were issued to the petitioner with a direction to appear along with documents indicated in the summons. Petitioner duly appeared and filed requisites documents before authorities. 
• Thereafter, summary show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in Form GST DRC-01 and adjudication order under Section 73 (1) of the JGST Act was passed against the petitioner.
• The petitioner submitted that without serving copy of show cause notice and without affording opportunity of being heard passed the adjudication orders and consequent thereto issued Form GST DRC-07 being summary of orders just in order to fasten huge liability of tax, interest and penalty. 
• Revenue contended that the writ petition is not maintainable in the light of availability of alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of JGST Act, 2017 and the opportunity of hearing was duly provided to the petitioner but the petitioner did not appear.
• The Petitioner filed both these writ applications.

Issue-

• Whether the Writ application is maintainable?

Order-

• The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that even after going through the entire order sheet it clearly transpires that on 16.05.2019 there was an order for issuance of DRC-01 but after that there was no mention of issuance of DRC-07; rather all of a sudden, 08.09.2021, there was a direction to issue DRC-13. This clearly goes to show that there is serious discrepancy and incongruity in the assessment proceedings, inasmuch as, there is no whisper of issuing DRC-07. Thus, it clearly transpires that a proper show cause notice under Section 73 (1) of the JGST Act and proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before the adjudication order was passed. 
• The court further observed that no opportunity of personal hearing has been given and merely a form has been issued just to cover up the discrepancies committed by the respondent-State.
• Thus, the Court held that the writ applications are maintainable and the impugned adjudication order in both the writ application are not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of non-compliance of statutory provisions of the JGST Act and for non-compliance of principle of natural justice.
• The matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to issue a fresh show cause notice and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner pass an order afresh.
• Hence the writ application is allowed.