High Court emphasizes petitioner's right to challenge show cause notice under Article 226, directs fair hearing.

The High Court addressed the challenge to a show cause notice, emphasizing the petitioner's right to challenge it under Article 226. The Court directed the petitioner to submit objections on jurisdiction and maintainability, with the 2nd respondent required to provide a fair hearing and consider all contentions. The Court stressed the need for the 2nd respondent to determine jurisdiction before proceeding. The Writ Petition was disposed of with directions for a thorough review of jurisdictional issues and ensuring a just process before any further actions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the show cause notice dated 28.11.2019.
2. Authority of law in proceedings initiated as per the notice.
3. Applicability and validity of notifications relied upon in the show cause notice.
4. Jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent in the matter.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 28.11.2019, contending that it was issued without proper authority of law. The petitioner argued that the proceedings initiated after the repeal of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, lacked legal basis. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the notice, asserting that the notifications referenced in the notice were invalid due to the repeal of the parent statute. The High Court noted that the notice was essentially a show cause notice, and the petitioner had not yet responded to it.

2. The respondents, specifically respondents 2 to 4, filed a statement citing Sections 173 and 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. These sections deal with the amendment and repeal of certain acts, ensuring that the repeal does not affect ongoing legal proceedings, rights, obligations, or liabilities acquired under the amended or repealed acts. The Court acknowledged the legal provisions presented by both sides and emphasized that the petitioner had the opportunity to raise objections and present written submissions regarding the maintainability and lack of jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent.

3. The Court held that the petitioner could challenge the show cause notice through the discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It directed the petitioner to submit detailed written objections, focusing on maintainability and lack of jurisdiction, within a specified timeframe. The 2nd respondent was instructed to provide a fair hearing to the petitioner through authorized counsel, considering all contentions raised by the petitioner. The Court emphasized the importance of the 2nd respondent determining the issue of jurisdiction before delving into the merits of the matter. The petitioner was given the opportunity to present objections promptly, following which the 2nd respondent would proceed based on the submissions and conduct a thorough review before making a decision on jurisdiction.

4. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition (Civil) with the mentioned observations and directions. It emphasized the need for the 2nd respondent to carefully consider the jurisdictional issues raised by the petitioner before proceeding with the merits of the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their objections and ensuring a just and thorough review of the matter before any further actions were taken by the 2nd respondent.

---