Order Date – 30 November 2023

Parties: Rean Watertech Private Limited Vs The Commissioner of State Tax, The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and The State of Madhya Pradesh

Facts –

• The Petitioner, Rean Watertech Private Limited, was issued with a show cause notice  (Annexure-P/3) demanding tax along with interest and penalty on 22.04.2022. Along with the show-cause notice a summary of show-cause notice as well as Form GST DRC-01 were appended mentioning scrutiny u/S. 61, Rule 99(1) against the column “brief facts of the case”, as scrutiny of return followed by table mentioning the amount of tax, interest and penalty due.
• The order was passed confirming the demand in the show cause notice.
• The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice is non-speaking and thus insufficient for the petitioner/assessee to prepare an effective reply and defend himself thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Issue –

• Whether the show cause notice is legal and proper?

Order –

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court perused Section 73 of the GST Act, Rule 142 of the CGST Rules and Form GST DRC-01, and observed that the impugned show-cause notice contains enough material to enable petitioner/assessee to submit an effective reply so as to prevent the said show-cause notice from being sacrificed at the alter of principles of natural justice. The details in the show-cause notice satisfy the per-requisites prescribed in Form GST DRC -01 which is statutory in nature.
• Thus, the contents of the show-cause notice cannot be termed as deficient or inadequate preventing the petitioner/assessee to prepare and file an effective reply and defend himself before the Proper Officer.
• If petitioner is of the view that certain additional document/material is required for filing an effective reply to the same, then petitioner could have very well demanded the same from the Proper Officer by disclosing the relevancy of such evidence/material to the issue involved. However, what is noticeable in this case is that no such representation was made by the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice and, therefore, it is presumed that petitioner has no grievance against the show-cause notice.
• Accordingly, no case for interference is made out and the petition is dismissed.