1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. The grievance of the present Petitioner as regards the impugned show cause notice (SCN) dated 8th/9th April 2021 issued to it by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) is that the requirement of holding the mandatory pre-SCN consultation in terms of the Master Circular dated 10th March 2017 of the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs has not been complied with.

3. Relying on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Back Office IT Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India, 2021 (4) TMI 520 and Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd v. Pr. Commr. of C. Ex., S.T. and Central Tax 2019 (25) GSTL 486 (Del.) and other decisions, it is urged by Mr. Harish Bindumadhavan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, that the impugned SCN ought to be set aside and a mandamus issued to Opposite Parties to first hold the pre-SCN consultation with the Petitioner.

4. Mr. R. Chimanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on advance notice for Opposite Party No.2 draws the attention of the Court to the fact that prior to the issuance of the impugned SCN, several summons were in fact issued to the Petitioner and to its Director to appear and furnish relevant information and yet many of the summons were not responded to.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not dispute that the Petitioner may not have appeared pursuant to each of the summons issued, but refers to paragraph 3.8 of the SCN which sets out in detail the questions posed to the Petitioner/employee of the company and the response thereto.

6. Nevertheless, it is sought to be argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner that this still does not satisfy requirement of Paragraph 5.0 of the Master Circular and that it does not constitute a pre-SCN consultation.

7. The Court is unable to agree with the above submission. The purpose of paragraph 5.0 of the Master Circular is only that there should be “trade facilitation” and “voluntary compliance” in order to reduce the necessity of issuing a SCN. At the stage where numerous summons were issued to the Petitioner and to its Director, the Department had not yet the issues or the demand to be raised in the SCN. In effect what appears to have transpired pursuant to the summons issued was a ‘consultation’ where the documents produced by the Petitioner/employees of the Petitioner were examined and questions were posed to the notices to explain many aspects of such documents.

8. In the considered view of the Court, the requirement of there having to be a ‘consultation’ in terms of paragraph 5.0 of the Master Circular stands satisfied in the present case.

9. The Court is therefore not inclined to interfere at the present stage of the SCN. Any defence that the Petitioner may have in response to the SCN is permitted to be urged before the Opposite Parties in accordance with law. The time for the Petitioner to reply to the SCN is extended up to 16th August, 2021.

10. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

11. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.