TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 975
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the respondents. The petitioner has also challenged the initiation of proceeding which was issued vide Form GST-13 dated 08.09.2021 in both the writ applications. Petitioner has further prayed for a declaration that the adjudication order passed in both these writ application in exercise of power under Section 73 of the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax, Act, (hereinafter to be referred as JGST Act.) as communicated to the petitioner on 06.10.2021 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in utter violation of provisions contained under Section 73 and 75 of the JGST Act. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a registered dealer and is primarily engaged in the business of trading of Jaggary, Mahua and Krana Goods. An inspection was carried out in the premises of petitioner by a team of officials of State Tax Department, Jharkhand and pursuant thereto; an inspection report was prepared by recording, inter alia, that for the period from 2017-18 and 2018-19 (April, 2018 to June, 2019), there were certain discrepancies in GSTR-3B return and auto populated GSTR-2A return. Pursuant to the inspection, respondent-authorities in exercise of power under section 70 (1) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hing but reiteration of provisions of Section 73 of the JGST Act. In fact, date, time and venue of personal hearing was indicated as 'NA' in the show cause notice. 7. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders submit that the respondent No.3 without serving copy of show cause notice and without affording opportunity of being heard passed the adjudication orders and consequent thereto issued Form GST DRC-07 being summary of orders just in order to fasten huge liability of tax, interest and penalty. He further submits that for the first time petitioner came to know about the adjudication order when his bank account has been attached by the respondent No.4. He contended that the bank account was attached without serving the copy of DRC-07 to this petitioner. 8. Learned counsel further contended that by perusing the adjudication order dated 12.09.2019 it would be evident that only after DRC-01 was issued to the petitioner, the impugned adjudication order has been passed ex-parte and no opportunity of personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the impugned assessment order is also non-speaking order and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04.2022, whereby this Court granted stay on the garnishee notices subject to payment of 10% of the tax dues; the same may be refunded or be adjusted towards future liability. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-State raised mainly two points: (i) The writ petition is not maintainable in the light of availability of alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of JGST Act, 2017. (ii) The opportunity of hearing in terms of provision of JGST Act was duly provided to the petitioner but the petitioner did not appear and therefore, the impugned order has been passed. 13. Mr. P.A.S.Pati, learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that the petitioner appeared before the adjudicating authority and furnished requisite documents and only thereafter, the impugned order has been passed in both these writ applications. He further contended that if at all the petitioner is having any grievance; he may file appeal before the appellate authority. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein it appears that an inspection was carried out in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... April 2018 to June, 2018 [W.P.(T) No. 1527 of 2022)]. There is no other document to suggest that the petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing, inasmuch as, in the notice issued under notice under Section 73 of the Act, in the column of date time and venue of personal hearing it was indicated by the respondents as "NA" which means not applicable. This clearly indicates that no opportunity of personal hearing has been given and merely a form has been issued just to cover up the discrepancies committed by the respondent-State. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment delivered in the case of M/s NKAS Services Private Limited Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(T) No. 2444 of 2021; wherein this court after going through the several judgments laid down the law as Under: "15. The Apex Court has held that the concept of reasonable opportunity includes various safeguards and one of them is to afford opportunity to the person to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges leveled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based. 16. It is also true that ....