Tanushree Logisitics (P.) Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan

Certainly! Here’s a long summary of the situation described:

At the beginning of the proceedings, the learned counsel representing the respondents raised a preliminary objection concerning the maintainability of the writ petitions. These petitions sought to challenge an order of assessment issued under Section 50 and Section 74 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

The essence of the objection was that the writ petitions were not maintainable for various reasons, potentially related to procedural or substantive issues. Section 50 of the Act pertains to the payment of tax in certain circumstances, while Section 74 deals with the determination of the amount of tax payable and the imposition of penalties for tax evasion or other related infractions.

The respondents’ counsel argued that the appropriate remedy for addressing grievances related to such assessments might not be through writ petitions, which are generally used to address issues of jurisdiction, legality, or constitutional violations, but rather through alternative legal or administrative channels as provided under the Act.

The court would need to address this objection to determine whether the writ petitions could proceed on their merits or if the respondents’ objections regarding maintainability warranted dismissal or redirection of the petitions.

At the beginning of the case, the respondents’ counsel raised an objection concerning the maintainability of the writ petitions. These petitions challenged an assessment order issued under Section 50 and 74 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The objection was based on the argument that the petitioner should have used the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act, rather than filing writ petitions.

In response, the petitioner’s counsel argued that despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the petitions were justified. The petitioner was challenging the assessment orders for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-2020, including the associated interest and penalties. The basis for the challenge was that the impugned orders violated principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, particularly concerning the issuance of show cause notices. The petitioner contended that although show cause notices were issued, there was no specific date given for a hearing, and the orders were finalized on 11.11.2022. Furthermore, the petitioner had submitted a reply on the same date, but the impugned orders did not reflect any consideration of this reply. Instead, the orders incorrectly stated that the petitioner had not participated in the inquiry or submitted any records.

The petitioner also argued that the respondents had violated Section 74 of the Act by failing to provide a summary of grounds in Form DRC-01 along with the show cause notice, constituting a significant procedural error. This was presented as a flagrant violation of the statutory requirements.

At the outset of the case, the respondents raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions. They argued that the petitions should be dismissed because the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available through an appeal under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitions challenged an assessment order issued under Sections 50 and 74 of the Act, related to the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, along with interest and penalties.

The petitioner countered this objection, asserting that despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the writ petitions were justified. The petitioner claimed that the impugned assessment orders suffered from significant procedural and legal flaws. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the orders violated principles of natural justice and statutory provisions regarding the issuance of show cause notices. Although show cause notices were issued, the petitioner contended that they were not provided with adequate time or specific hearing dates to respond. The petitioner submitted their reply on the same day as the impugned orders were issued, but claimed that their reply was not considered and that the orders falsely stated that the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings or provided any records.

The petitioner further argued that the respondents violated Section 74 of the Act by failing to provide a summary of grounds in Form DRC-01 along with the show cause notice, as required by Rule 142 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner asserted that key documents and evidence collected by the respondents were not shared with them, and they were not granted the three opportunities for response as mandated by Section 75(5) of the Act. The show cause notice was also criticized for lacking clarity on the specific clause of Section 15 of the Act that justified the tax liability, rendering the notice and the subsequent orders vague and legally unsustainable. The petitioner also claimed that the authority had prejudged the matter, resulting in an order that merely repeated the content of the show cause notice.

In response, the respondents’ counsel argued that they adhered strictly to legal provisions and provided the petitioner with multiple opportunities throughout the process. Summons were issued under Section 70 of the Act, followed by a show cause notice under Section 74 on July 6, 2022. The respondents maintained that they did not merely follow a formality but ensured that the petitioner had sufficient chances to participate in the proceedings.

In a legal dispute concerning the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the key issue revolves around the maintainability of writ petitions challenging orders of assessment under Sections 50 and 74 of the Act. The respondents argue that the writ petitions should be dismissed due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy—an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. They contend that the petitioners should utilize this remedy rather than approach the court directly.

The petitioners, however, argue that despite the existence of this alternative remedy, the writ petitions are justified. They assert that the orders of assessment for the years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, including penalties and interest, were flawed due to violations of natural justice and statutory procedures. Specifically, the petitioners claim that the show cause notices issued were deficient as they did not provide a specific date for hearings, and the orders were passed without considering their reply submitted on the same day as the orders.

Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the respondents did not comply with the statutory requirement of providing a summary of grounds in Form DRC-01 with the show cause notice, leading to a breach of Rule 142 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. They also point out that they were not granted the three opportunities for hearings as stipulated under Section 75(5) of the Act. Additionally, they contend that the show cause notices were vague and did not specify the applicable clause of Section 15, which is essential for establishing tax liability.

In contrast, the respondents maintain that they followed the legal process diligently. They detail a series of summons and requests for information issued to the petitioner, asserting that these were part of the compliance procedure starting from September 2019. They argue that the petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to provide complete information, which justified the actions taken by the respondents. They also assert that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities to respond and that the show cause notices and subsequent assessments were conducted in accordance with the law.

Overall, the contention is centered on whether the petitioners’ challenges are appropriate given the statutory remedy available and whether procedural errors and violations of natural justice occurred in the assessment process.

At the beginning of the proceedings, the respondents’ counsel raised an objection concerning the maintainability of the writ petitions filed to challenge assessment orders under Sections 50 and 74 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (the “Act”). The objection was based on the argument that the petitioner had an alternative, effective remedy through a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act, which the petitioner had not exhausted.

The petitioner’s counsel countered that despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the writ petitions were justified. They argued that the assessment orders for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-2020 were flawed due to violations of natural justice principles and statutory provisions related to the issuance of show cause notices. Specifically, they contended that although show cause notices were issued, the petitioner was not given a specific date for a hearing and was not provided an adequate opportunity to respond before the orders were finalized on November 11, 2022. Furthermore, they claimed that the petitioner’s reply, submitted on the same date as the orders, was not considered. The petitioner also argued that the mandatory summary of grounds in form DRC-01 was not provided, violating Rule 142 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. Additionally, they pointed out that various documents used to form the basis of the orders were not shared with the petitioner, and they were not granted the three opportunities mandated under Section 75(5) of the Act. The show cause notices were also alleged to be vague, and the petitioner believed that the authority had prejudged the matter.

Conversely, the respondents’ counsel argued that they had adhered strictly to legal provisions and had provided multiple opportunities to the petitioner. Summons were issued starting from September 6, 2019, and despite numerous opportunities and requests for adjournments, the petitioner had only partially complied or avoided providing necessary information. The respondents maintained that show cause notices and subsequent orders were issued in compliance with legal requirements and that any issues regarding the non-issuance of a summary of grounds were technical and did not render the proceedings invalid. They emphasized that the petitioner failed to respond to the summons or provide a complete reply before the order was passed, and therefore, the claims of procedural violations were unfounded.

In summary, the dispute centers on whether the petitioner’s writ petitions challenging the assessment orders are maintainable given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy and whether there were significant procedural errors in the assessment process that justify the writ petitions.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: