Madhya Pradesh HC in the case of Akash Garg Versus The state of M.P.
Table of Contents
Case Covered:
Akash Garg
Versus
The state of M.P.
Facts of the Case:
Instant petition invoking writ and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution prays for following reliefs:-
“(i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record from the office of respondents for its kind perusal.
(ii) That, a writ of certiorari or any other writ or writs may kindly be issued quashing the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 18.09.2020 for the year 2018-19 and 2019-20 and orders as referred in the said order i.e. order under section 74 dated 10.06.2020 passed by the respondents.
(iii) That, a writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs may kindly be issued quashing the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 18.09.2020 and orders as referred in the said order i.e. order under section 74 dated 10.06.2020 passed by the respondents.
(iv) Direct the respondents to comply with the provisions of the GST Act and upload notices and orders only on the GSTN Portal as mandated under the law.
(v) Any other relief considered expedient and just under the facts of the case by the Hon’ble Court may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.”
Related Topic:
Components of the definition of Plant and Machinery examined by AAR Madhya Pradesh
Observations:
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that the only mode prescribed for communicating the show-cause notice/order is by way of uploading the same on the website of the revenue.
The State in its reply has provided no material to show that show-cause notice/orders No.11 and 11a dated 10.06.2020 were uploaded on the website of revenue. In fact, learned AAG, Shri Mody, fairly concedes that the show-cause notice/orders were communicated to petitioner by E-mail and were not uploaded on the website of the revenue.
It is a trite principle of law that when a particular procedure is prescribed to perform a particular act then all other procedures/modes except the one prescribed are excluded. This principle becomes all the more stringent when statutorily prescribed as is the case herein.
The Decision of the Court:
In view of above discussion, this Court has no manner of doubt that statutory procedure prescribed for communicating show-cause notice/order under Rule 142(1) of CGST Act having not been followed by the revenue, the impugned demand dated 18.09.2020 vide Annexure P/1 and P/2 pertaining to the financial year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 and tax period September 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to May 2019 respectively, deserves to be and is struck down.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed with the liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 142 of CGST Act by communicating the show-cause notice to the petitioner by appropriate mode thereafter to proceed in accordance with law.
Read & Download the full Decision in pdf:
Consultant
