Court Orders Timely Response to Preliminary Objections, Ensuring Procedural Fairness

The High Court directed respondent No.2 to address the preliminary objections within one week, emphasizing procedural fairness and timely resolution without delving into the case's merits. The petitioner sought to quash tax payment and penalty notices while claiming a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit, facing non-responsiveness despite detailed submissions. The court's decision aimed to ensure due process and an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case effectively.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notices issued by respondent No.2 for tax payment and penalty.
2. Refund claim of unutilized Input Tax Credit by the petitioner.
3. Lack of response to preliminary objections filed by the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in providing support services to 'Pharmaco Vigilance,' sought a writ of certiorari to quash notices dated 29.1.2019 issued by respondent No.2, along with a writ of prohibition to restrain further proceedings. The notices demanded tax payments totaling significant amounts for specified periods, accompanied by interest and penalty. The petitioner had earlier claimed a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit, which was rejected by respondent No.2, leading to an ongoing appeal. Despite filing detailed submissions and objections, the petitioner faced non-responsiveness, prompting the writ petition.

2. The petitioner's business activities involve compiling and converting consumer feedback on drugs into reports for utilization. A refund application amounting to &8377;1,53,86,366/- for the period from July 2017 to March 2018 was submitted, but was initially rejected by respondent No.2. Subsequent to this rejection, show cause notices were issued for substantial tax payments, leading to the petitioner's filing of objections and detailed submissions. Notably, a screenshot from the GST Portal indicated that the refund application had been accepted and sanctioned, adding complexity to the situation.

3. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the lack of action on the preliminary objections filed before respondent No.2, emphasizing the need for a decision on the same. In response, the High Court directed respondent No.2 to address the preliminary objections within one week, following due process and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. The judgment refrained from delving into the case's merits but focused on procedural fairness and timely resolution of the pending issues.

---