2025 (5) TMI 1611 - HC - GST

GST Dispute Dismissed: Procedural Compliance Upheld, Tax Authority's Notice Validated Under Section 74

The HC examined a GST-related dispute involving a Show Cause Notice and order under Section 74 of HPGST/CGST Act. The Court rejected the petitioner's ... Demand of GST along with interest and penalty - wrongly availed or utilized input tax credit - Show Cause Notice issued subsequent to the issuance of the order in Form DRC-07 - Violation of the principles of natural justice - Validity and Jurisdiction of the Show Cause Notice and Order under Section 74 of HPGST/CGST Act - HELD THAT:- It is not the case where the Court is directing the petitioner to avail of an alternate remedy rather the Court is of the view that the petitioner has to face the show cause notice and reply to the same. Violation of the principles of natural justice will only come into play, in case, the respondents do not afford a chance to the petitioner to furnish reply to the show cause notice. This is not the fact situation obtaining in the present case. Clearly, the present petition is a misadventure and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:Whether the impugned combined Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2023 issued under Section 74 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (HPGST) Act and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, demanding GST along with interest and penalty on account of alleged excess/ineligible input tax credit, is valid or suffers from jurisdictional, procedural, or substantive infirmities.Whether the impugned order in Form DRC-07 dated 21.04.2025, passed under Section 74 of the HPGST/CGST Act, demanding GST amounting to Rs. 1,14,81,344/- including interest and penalty, is liable to be quashed on grounds of illegality, arbitrariness, non-application of mind, and violation of principles of natural justice.Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to be heard and whether principles of natural justice were violated in the issuance and passing of the Show Cause Notice and the order in Form DRC-07.Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim relief in the form of stay of operation of the impugned Show Cause Notice and order during the pendency of the writ petition.Whether the petitioner can seek dispensation from procedural requirements such as filing of certified copies and advance service of notices.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity and Jurisdiction of the Show Cause Notice and Order under Section 74 of HPGST/CGST ActRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 74 of the CGST Act deals with the determination of tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The issuance of a Show Cause Notice under this provision is a prerequisite to demanding tax, interest, and penalty. The legal framework mandates that such notices must be issued within the prescribed time limits and must specify the grounds for the demand.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2023 was issued subsequent to the issuance of the order in Form DRC-07 dated 21.04.2025, which is procedurally unusual as typically the Show Cause Notice precedes such orders. However, the Court did not find any jurisdictional infirmity in the issuance of the Show Cause Notice or the order. The Court observed that the petitioner had not challenged the jurisdiction or validity of the notice on any substantial ground except alleging violation of natural justice.Key evidence and findings: The record indicated that the Show Cause Notice demanded GST amounting to Rs. 12,16,57,928/- including interest and penalty for alleged excess or ineligible input tax credit availed by the petitioner. The order in Form DRC-07 demanded Rs. 1,14,81,344/- on similar grounds. The petitioner had not filed any reply to the Show Cause Notice nor appeared before the authority.Application of law to facts: The Court held that the issuance of Show Cause Notice and order under Section 74 is a statutory procedure and the petitioner is obliged to respond to the allegations before seeking judicial intervention. The Court emphasized that the mere issuance of a notice or order does not amount to illegality or arbitrariness unless the authority acts without jurisdiction or in violation of statutory provisions.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices were cryptic, vague, and without application of mind, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the notices were issued following due procedure and the petitioner had not availed the opportunity to respond. The Court favored the respondents' position, stressing the mandatory nature of the petitioner's participation in the process.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Show Cause Notice and order were not without jurisdiction or illegal. The petitioner's challenge on these grounds was premature and untenable in the absence of any reply or appearance before the authority.Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural JusticeRelevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice require that a person against whom adverse action is contemplated must be given a fair opportunity to be heard, to present their case, and to respond to allegations before any final order is passed. This is a fundamental procedural safeguard in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the petitioner had not filed any reply to the Show Cause Notice nor appeared before the authority to contest the allegations. The Court clarified that violation of natural justice arises only if the authority denies the opportunity to be heard. Since the petitioner had not availed of the opportunity to respond, the plea of violation was not maintainable.Key evidence and findings: The absence of any reply or appearance by the petitioner before the tax authority was central to the Court's reasoning. There was no material to suggest that the petitioner was prevented from submitting a reply or appearing in the proceedings.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that the right to be heard is contingent on the petitioner's active participation. Failure to respond does not convert the process into a violation of natural justice.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's contention of violation was rejected on the ground that the opportunity was available but not utilized. The respondents' argument that the process was fair and in accordance with law was accepted.Conclusions: The Court held that there was no violation of natural justice in the issuance and passing of the impugned notices and orders.Issue 3: Interim Relief and Procedural RequestsRelevant legal framework and precedents: Courts have discretion to grant interim relief such as stay of operation of impugned orders to prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of litigation.