Review orders quashed for exceeding show cause notice scope and violating natural justice under Rule 58(1)(h)

The HC quashed the impugned review orders for lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice. The show cause notice addressed denial of deduction only under Rule 58(1)(h), but the review order disallowed deductions under all sub-rules (a) to (h), which was beyond the scope of the notice and thus bad in law. The application of a 20% rate under Rule 58(1) was also held unauthorized as the precondition of unclear accounts was not satisfied; the petitioner's accounts were verified and accepted in prior assessments. The court reiterated that orders cannot extend beyond the grounds specified in the show cause notice. Although an alternative remedy of appeal was available, the HC exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 due to jurisdictional and natural justice violations. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the impugned orders dated 8th March and 6th July 2021 were set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Respondents to pass the impugned order.
2. Validity of the review order dated 8th March 2021 under Section 25 of the MVAT Act.
3. Validity of the order rejecting the rectification application dated 6th July 2021 under Section 24 of the MVAT Act.
4. Principles of natural justice and whether the impugned order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice.
5. Applicability of Rule 58(1) of the MVAT Rules and the conditions for applying the rates specified in the Table to Rule 58(1).

Summary:

Jurisdiction of the Respondents:
The Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Respondents to pass the impugned order, arguing it was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and the provisions of the MVAT Act. The Petitioner also contended that the review order was passed without satisfying the pre-conditions required under Rule 58(1) of the MVAT Rules.

Validity of the Review Order:
The Court found that the show cause notice issued on 22nd October 2018 was only to deny deduction on account of profit on supply of labour and service under Rule 58(1)(h) amounting to Rs. 9,41,22,626/-, and not all deductions under Rule 58(1)(a) to (h). The review order dated 8th March 2021, however, disallowed all deductions amounting to Rs. 30,59,93,405/-, which was beyond the scope of the show cause notice, rendering it bad in law.

Validity of the Order Rejecting Rectification Application:
The order rejecting the rectification application dated 6th July 2021 was also found to be without jurisdiction as it justified the review order by improperly applying the rates specified in the Table under Rule 58(1) without satisfying the pre-conditions.

Principles of Natural Justice:
The Court held that the impugned order was in breach of principles of natural justice as it was passed without giving a show cause notice for disallowing all deductions under Rule 58(1)(a) to (h). The Supreme Court's decisions in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs M/s. Toyo Engineering India Limited and Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. were cited to support this conclusion.

Applicability of Rule 58(1) of the MVAT Rules:
The Court noted that the rates specified in the Table to Rule 58(1) could only be applied if the contractor had not maintained accounts for proper evaluation of deductions or if the accounts were not clear or intelligible. The show cause notices did not allege this, making the application of the rates specified in the Table without jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The impugned orders dated 8th March 2021 and 6th July 2021 were quashed and set aside. The Court allowed the petition on the grounds that the orders were passed in excess of the jurisdiction conferred by Section 25 of the MVAT Act and beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The petition was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and (c) with no order as to costs.

---