M/S Maa Tara Stone Works through Its Proprietor… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2024)

M/S Maa Tara Stone Works through Its Proprietor… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to explain the reasons sought in the second show-cause notice within two weeks; the authority concerned to consider the explanation in accordance with law and take follow-up action in view of the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice in Form GST ASMT-10 (Reference No. 454 dated 10.07.2024), issued under Section 61 of the JGST Act read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, was wholly without jurisdiction and in excess of the power conferred upon the respondent-authority regarding scrutiny of returns.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to explain the reasons sought in the second show-cause notice within two weeks; the authority concerned was directed to consider the explanation in accordance with law and take follow-up action in view of the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act. The jurisdictional challenge to the ASMT-10 notice was not adjudicated.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

M/s Maa Tara Stone Works filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a notice in Form GST ASMT-10 (Reference No. 454 dated 10.07.2024) issued under Section 61 of the JGST Act read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, contending its issuance was wholly without jurisdiction and in excess of the power conferred for scrutiny of returns. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the first show-cause notice was answered, a second show-cause notice had been issued, and prayed for disposal with liberty to respond to the second notice within a fixed time; the State raised no opposition. The Division Bench (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J. and Arun Kumar Rai, J.), by order dated 4 September 2024, disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner two weeks to explain the reasons called for in the second show-cause notice, with the authority to consider the reply in accordance with law and take follow-up action under the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act. The jurisdictional objection was not decided on merits.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 4863 of 2024

---------

M/s Maa Tara Stone Works, (A Proprietorship Concern), having its works at Mouza Chhota Lohanda, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj, PIN-816109 (Jharkhand), through its Proprietor, namely, Sunil Kumar Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Dilip Kumar Singh, resident of Chhota Pachgarh, Jirwabari, P.O. Sahibganj, P.S. Jirwabari, District-Sahibganj (Jharkhand).

… … Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of State Tax, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 8327604.

Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand), PIN 816109.

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Sahibganj Circle, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand), PIN 816109.

State Tax Officer, Sahibganj Circle, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand), PIN 816109.

… …. Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Khushwaha, Advocate Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG-III

-----------

02/Dated: 4^th September, 2024

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief(s):-

“For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing/setting aside the Notice contained in Form GST ASMT 10 (Annexure-2), issued vide Reference No. 454 dated 10.07.2024 in alleged exercise of the power under Section 61 of the JGST Act read with Rule 99(1) of the JGST Rules, especially because the very issuance of the said Notice is wholly without jurisdiction and is in excess of the power conferred upon Respondent-authority regarding scrutiny of returns, as provided under Section 61 of the JGST Act.”

Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that in the instant case, as per his instructions, second show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, but, since the first show-cause notice has been responded and in pursuance thereof,

1

second show-cause notice has been issued, this writ petition may be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to respond to the second showcause notice within a specific time.

Ms. Rishi Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State, does not have any opposition to the aforesaid prayer.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to explain the reason which has been sought in the second show-cause, within two weeks and the authority concerned will consider the same in accordance with law and depending upon the conclusion, follow-up action be taken in view of the mandate of Section 61 of the JGST Act.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Saurabh /-

2