M/s SHRI SHARMA STEELTECH INDIA PVT. LTD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
High Court, Rajasthan
Pankaj Bhandari, Justice & Praveer Bhatnagar, Justice
M/s SHRI SHARMA STEELTECH INDIA PVT. LTD
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 13168/2024 dated 13.08.2024
Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
Rule Number : Rule 142 (1A)
Rule Name : Rajasthan Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017
Decision : In favour of revenue
Rule 142(1A) is discretionary or mandatory – Consideration of reply to the pre-SCN – Premature petition – Writ Petition filed to challenge impugned order on the ground that the authorities not considering their reply to the pre-SCN issued under GST DRC-01A – It was argued that u/r 142(1A), the authorities must consider replies to such notices before issuing a formal show cause notice – Referred to Calcutta High Court judgments in the case of Eden Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd., which interpreted the law as requiring authorities to provide an opportunity for a hearing before issuing a show cause notice – Petitioner requested the court to direct authorities to consider their reply before issuing a show cause notice – Respondent submitted that Rule 142(1A) is discretionary, meaning the proper officer may issue a communication, not that they must – There is no mandatory requirement for a hearing or considering a reply u/r 142(1A) and Rule 142(2A) – Cited Supreme Court decisions that affirmed writ petitions should not generally be entertained at the stage of pre-show cause notices, and that the aggrieved party should raise objections at the appropriate stage after the issuance of a formal show cause notice – Held that – The Court agreed with the respondents, finding that the issuance of a communication u/r 142(1A) is discretionary – There is no statutory requirement for the authorities to provide a hearing or adjudicate submissions at the pre-show cause stage – The right to be heard arises only after the issuance of a SCN u/r 142(1)(a) – Disagreed with the Calcutta High Court’s interpretation and emphasized that the tax laws should be interpreted strictly, without implying additional requirements that were not intended by the legislature – Writ Petition dismissed, holding that the petitioner’s submission was premature since no SCN had yet been issued.
Represented By:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Vagish Kumar Singh assisted by Sakshi Agarwal
Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
🔒 Premium Content
Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.
Become Premium Member