SHYAM HARDWARE STORE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs:-

(2.) The facts of the case as disclosed in the instant writ application are that on 11/1/2020 by the order of Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Admin), Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh an inspection was conducted by the joint team of officers of Investigation Bureau and Ramgarh Circle in the premises of the petitioner and an Inspection Report was prepared. At the bottom of the inspection report (Annexure-2/6) petitioner was directed to appear on 17/1/2020 before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Admin) Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh failing which proceeding under Ss. 73, 50(1) and 125 of JGST Act would be initiated. In the Inspection Report, the inspecting team has also alleged three discrepancies against the petitioner namely, short of goods in physical stock to the tune of Rs.4,26,734.01, short of goods in summary stock for Rs.19918.00 and failure to declare additional place of business and thereby directed the petitioner to submit his explanation for aforesaid discrepancies along with purchase invoices and payment evidences before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Admin), Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh on 17/1/2020, otherwise, the action would be taken against the petitioner under Ss. 73, 50(1) and 125 of the Act.

(3.) Mr. Vishnu Deo Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case no pre-show cause notice in form of Form GST DRC-01A was issued intimating him of the liability of tax, interest applicable and/or penalty which if not paid would lead to initiation of adjudication process as contemplated under Sec. 73 of JGST Act. Learned counsel contended that due to this action petitioner was debarred from filing his objection in part B of Form GST DRC-01 A against the same. He further contended that no show-cause notice was issued in this regard to the petitioner under Sec. 73(1) of the JGST Act. The proper officers, as a matter of fact, has not initiated the adjudication process as contemplated under Sec. 73 of the JGST Act to determine the tax which in their opinion, has not been paid. Learned counsel also assailed the jurisdiction of the proper officers. Learned counsel concluded his argument by submitting that since the procedure prescribed for initiation of proceeding under Sec. 73 (1) of the JGST Act has not been followed; the petitioner has been highly prejudiced because of violation of principle of natural justice.