Manoj Kumar Mewara vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1151 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(T) No. 1268 of 2023
     Manoj Kumar Mewara                                         --- --- Petitioner
                                      Versus
     The State of Jharkhand & others                            --- --- Respondents
                                             .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr.S.C.-I, Rituraj, A.C to Sr.S.C.-I

02/16.03.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-11, the impugned order in original relating to Tax Period July 2017 to March 2018 and the summary of the order under GST DRC-07 for the Tax Period July 2017 to March 2018 (Annexure-12) and submitted that the adjudication order does not contain any reason at all which could show application of mind to the reply furnished by the petitioner at Annexure- 9 in Form GST DRC-06.

He has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vrs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, para

47. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner has approached this Court under Writ jurisdiction as the appellate authority under Section 107(4) of the JGST Act does not have any power to remand the matter in case the adjudication order is without any reasoning at all. He submits that although an adverse order has been passed entailing huge tax liability with interest, no opportunity of personal hearing has been accorded in terms of Section 75(4) of the JGST Act, which is in teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Juhi Industries Pvt. Limited Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.(T) No. 1991 of 2021 & analogous case, judgment dated 27.06.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire component of compensation cess, which was inadvertently left out in the GSTR-3B return for the period July and August 2017 has been reflected in the annual return of GSTR-9.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order impugned is not without jurisdiction and remedy of appeal lies against that. However, he want to obtain instruction as to whether any detailed reasoned order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority dealing with the reply of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that period of filing of appeal is likely to be expired on 06.04.2023. As such, as prayed for by learned counsel for the respondent, list this case on 03.04.2023.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.) A.Mohanty