2024 (10) TMI 279 - HC - GST

HC sets aside orders under Section 73(9) for procedural violations and lack of proper authentication

Construction Catalysers Private Limited, The Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, M/s. Nitai Kangsa Banik And Anr., The Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Formerly Known As Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank), Aurora Fine Arts Versus State Of Assam And, The Principal Commissioner Of State Tax, The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Guwahati, The Union Of India, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs New Delhi, The Principal Commissioner State GST, Assam, The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Silchar.

Construction Catalysers Private Limited, The Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, M/s. Nitai Kangsa Banik And Anr., The Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Formerly Known As ... Issues Involved:1. Whether Show Cause Notices were issued prior to passing the Impugned Order under Section 73 (9) of the State Act.2. Whether the determination of tax as well as the Order attached to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 and the Summary of the Order in GST DRC-07 can be said to be the Show Cause Notice and Order respectively.3. Whether the impugned orders under Section 73 (9) of the State Act are in conformity with Section 75 (4) of the State Act and are in consonance with the principles of natural justice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:(i) Show Cause Notices Prior to Impugned Order:The court examined whether proper Show Cause Notices were issued before the orders under Section 73 (9) of the State Act were passed. It was observed that the Summary of the Show Cause Notices in GST DRC-01 mentioned an attachment as the Show Cause Notice. However, the court clarified that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice as mandated by Section 73. The court highlighted the necessity of issuing a detailed Show Cause Notice that specifies the reasons and circumstances for invoking Section 73, providing the taxpayer an opportunity to respond adequately. The court concluded that the absence of a proper Show Cause Notice rendered the proceedings invalid.(ii) Determination of Tax and Order Attachments:The court addressed whether the attachments to the Summary of the Show Cause Notice and the Summary of the Order could be considered as the actual Show Cause Notice and Order. It was emphasized that the attachments lacked authentication by the Proper Officer, violating Rule 26 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court referred to precedents from various High Courts, underscoring the necessity for digital or e-signature authentication. The court determined that without proper authentication, the attachments were ineffective and could not replace the requirement for a properly issued Show Cause Notice and Order.(iii) Conformity with Section 75 (4) and Natural Justice:The court examined whether the impugned orders complied with Section 75 (4) of the State Act, which mandates an opportunity for a hearing when requested or when an adverse decision is contemplated. It was found that in some cases, taxpayers had requested a hearing, which was not granted, violating the statutory requirement. The court emphasized that the absence of a hearing opportunity, even when not explicitly requested, contravenes the principles of natural justice. The court highlighted that the statutory mandate for a hearing is essential to ensure fairness in the adjudication process.Conclusion:The court concluded that the impugned orders were invalid due to the lack of proper Show Cause Notices, unauthorized attachments, and the absence of hearing opportunities, violating statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The orders were set aside and quashed. The court granted liberty to the respondent authorities to initiate de novo proceedings under Section 73, if deemed fit, while excluding the period from the issuance of the Summary of the Show Cause Notices to the date of serving the judgment's certified copy for computing the statutory period for passing orders under Section 73 (10).