Ranchi Carrying Corporation Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

“Issue a suitable writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 in Appeal No. KNP3/GST/055/2020 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 under the provisions of Section 130 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act in relation to the goods. Additionally, issue a suitable writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.01.2020 Form GST MOV-09 related to the goods. Furthermore, issue a suitable writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities in relation to the goods under Sections 129 and 130 against the petitioner, as these have been initiated in contravention of the provisions of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act/Rules and in contravention of the circulars issued by the Central Government which are binding on the respondents.”

The counsel for the petitioner argues that none of the notices required to be served under Section 129 of the GST Act have been served upon the petitioner, making the proceedings initiated and concluded against the petitioner ex-parte. On the basis of these averments, this Court, vide order dated 26.11.2020, granted the Standing Counsel time to obtain instructions regarding the non-service of the notices and the lack of an opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 and the order dated 23.01.2020, issued in Form GST MOV-09, are both fundamentally flawed as they were passed without following due process and without providing the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. This procedural lapse, according to the petitioner, violates the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirements mandated under the GST framework.

The petitioner further asserts that the entire proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act were initiated improperly. The petitioner claims that the actions of the respondent authorities are not only in contravention of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules but also contrary to the binding circulars issued by the Central Government, which are meant to guide and regulate the enforcement actions by the State authorities. The petitioner argues that this non-compliance with the established legal framework renders the proceedings and the consequent orders legally untenable and void.

The petition emphasizes that the procedural irregularities and the failure to serve notices deprived the petitioner of the right to a fair hearing, a fundamental tenet of natural justice. The petitioner requests the Court to scrutinize the legality of the actions taken by the respondent authorities and to issue appropriate writs or orders to nullify the impugned orders and the entire proceedings, thereby restoring the petitioner’s rights and ensuring compliance with the law. The Court’s intervention is sought to correct these procedural wrongs and to uphold the statutory protections intended to ensure fair administrative actions under the GST regime.

The Standing Counsel, Sri Jagdish Mishra, based on instructions, states that the order dated 6.1.2020 was served on the driver of the truck in question. Furthermore, the orders MOV-06 and MOV-07 were also served on the driver of the truck. However, with regard to the order dated 23.1.2020, MOV-09, he acknowledges that it was neither served on the driver nor on the owner of the goods but was instead served through affixation on the truck in question. The counsel for the petitioner argues that Section 169 of the GST Act provides specific methods for the service of notices, decisions, and other communications, which have not been adequately followed in this case. Section 169 stipulates that such documents can be served by giving or tendering them directly or by a messenger, including a courier, to the addressee or the taxable person, or to his manager or authorized representative, or to an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person, or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of the family residing with the taxable person. Alternatively, they can be served by registered post, speed post, or courier with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence. Furthermore, documents can be sent by email to the address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time, or by making them available on the common portal, or by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business, or personally worked for gain. If none of these modes are practicable, documents can be served by affixing them in some conspicuous place at the last known place of business or residence of the person, and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice. The petitioner contends that these prescribed methods were not properly adhered to in this case, particularly regarding the affixation on the truck, which does not fulfill the criteria of proper service as outlined in the Act. This procedural lapse has resulted in a lack of proper notice and a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity to respond or present their case. The petitioner further argues that the failure to serve the notices as required by law has led to an ex-parte proceeding against them, which is fundamentally unfair and legally untenable. The counsel emphasizes that the principles of natural justice mandate that any person against whom a proceeding is initiated must be given a fair opportunity to be heard, which was not provided in this case due to the improper service of notices. Consequently, the petitioner challenges the validity of the proceedings and the subsequent orders passed against them, asserting that they should be quashed due to the failure to comply with statutory requirements for the service of notices. The petitioner seeks the Court’s intervention to address these procedural deficiencies and to ensure that the statutory provisions for the service of notices are strictly adhered to, thereby safeguarding the rights of the petitioner to a fair hearing and due process. The petitioner’s counsel urges the Court to recognize the serious procedural errors in the case and to quash the impugned orders and proceedings initiated against the petitioner, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice and statutory compliance.

Download PDF:

For reference visit:

Read another case law:

GST Case Law: