The Court viewed that the impugned order dated 25.11.2022, was passed without affording due opportunity to the petitioner and as such, the same violates the principles of natural justice which is a facet of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution

In a recent case, the Gauhati High Court set aside the order passed in violation of natural justice principle. The Court observed that show cause notice under Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 issued on wrong address. Abraham Kaya Techi, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent No.2 primarily on two grounds: First, that the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 is in violation to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, prior to passing of the said impugned order, the petitioner was not issued the show cause notice. The second ground which has been taken is that the respondent No.2 does not have the jurisdiction in view of the fact that the petitioner or his proprietorship concern do not come within the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate of Dibrugarh, as no taxable event had taken place within the said Commissionerate. Be a GST Expert: Get Essential Questions, Key Judgements and Practical Guide, Click Here The petitioner is the proprietor of a firm in the name and style of ‘M/s. M.T Enterprise’. The petitioner and his firm is registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (the ‘CGST Act’) and the Principal place of business is Techi Building, Model Village, Naharlagun, Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh: 791110. The petitioner has also been allotted a GST No. bearing 12AIYPT2833LIZM. As per the said registration certificate, the petitioner’s proprietorship firm namely, M/s. M.T.Enterprise do not have any additional place of business in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. A communication was issued to the petitioner in the address namely No.1 Ghilamara, Lakhimpur 787053 by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax, North Lakhimpur Range. Thereafter, another similar notice was also issued to the petitioner on 11.08.2021 by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, North Lakhimpur Range. Subsequent thereto the Superintendent (Adj.) CGST having its Office at Milan Nagar Lane ‘F’ CR Building, Dibrugarh had issued a notice to the petitioner at the address i.e. No.1 Ghilamara, North Lakhimpur: 787053. Pursuant thereto on 25.11.2022, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order. Be a GST Expert: Get Essential Questions, Key Judgements and Practical Guide, Click Here The impugned order that the show cause notice was returned undelivered from the address of the noticee i.e. the petitioner with the remark ‘Addressee Left, Return to Sender’ and under such circumstances, the show cause notice was pasted in the Notice Board of the Divisional Office as well as in the Notice Board of the Hqrs. Office at Dibrugarh. It is further seen from the impugned order itself that the respondent No.2 has assumed that the notice was duly issued and the petitioner inspite of repeated opportunities being given did not avail the same. The court further submitted that even in the Form 26AS which was made the basis of passing the impugned order also mentioned that the petitioner’s address is at Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh and not at North Lakhimpur, Assam. The counsel further submitted that in the instant case as would be seen from the impugned order, the purported show cause notice was issued at the address where the petitioner had no office. It would also be seen from the impugned order also that the show cause notice admittedly was not served and as such, the respondent authorities had pasted the said show cause notice in the Notice Board of the respondent No.2. Be a GST Expert: Get Essential Questions, Key Judgements and Practical Guide, Click Here A single bench of Justice Devashis Baruah viewed that the impugned order dated 25.11.2022, was passed without affording due opportunity to the petitioner and as such, the same violates the principles of natural justice which is a facet of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The consequential effect of the above opinion of this Court is that this Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present facts, which is the question No.(i) so formulated hereinabove. Under such circumstances, taking into account that the petitioner does not hold any registration under the Finance Act of 1994, and the registration under the CGST Act of 2017 have no relevance, this Court is of the opinion that the issue pertaining to territorial jurisdiction should be decided by the respondent No.2, provided the respondent No.2 decide to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner at his proper address. The Court set aside the impugned order and quashed on the ground that the same has been passed in violation to the Principles of Natural Justice. AK Jain appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. SC Keyal appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.