2020 (9) TMI 212 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction - Contention that order has been passed without considering the reply and no notice issued for penalty - submission of petitioner is that the order is beyond jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the proceedings are culminated in the impunged order dated 03.07.2020, arose out of Section 129 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The pith and substance of the order impugned is in the nature of an order assessing the tax liability of the petitioner and determining the consequent penalty. All other arguments are in the nature of grounds, on the foot of which challenge may be laid to the impugned order. We do not propose to go into the merits of the submissions, at this stage, since an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the G.S.T. Act. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional challenge to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, Mughal Sarai, Chandauli.
2. Failure to consider the petitioner's reply in determination of tax liability.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 122 of the G.S.T. Act.
4. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 107 of the G.S.T. Act.

Jurisdictional Challenge:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, Mughal Sarai, Chandauli, dated 03.07.2020, on the grounds that the proceedings under Section 129 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, exceeded the authority's jurisdiction in determining tax liability. The petitioner argued that tax liability cannot be established under Section 129 of the G.S.T. Act, highlighting that a show-cause notice was issued on 04.06.2020, and the petitioner's reply on 19.06.2020 was not considered in the impugned order.

Failure to Consider Petitioner's Reply:
The petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner failed to consider the petitioner's reply submitted on 19.06.2020, which disputed the contents of the show-cause notice and the liability mentioned therein. This failure to take into account the petitioner's response was a crucial aspect in the determination of tax liability.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 122:
The petitioner argued that the penalty, if applicable, should have been imposed under Section 122 of the G.S.T. Act. It was asserted that no proceedings were initiated under this section, raising a concern about the legality of imposing a penalty without following the appropriate provisions of the law.

Availability of Alternative Remedy under Section 107:
The High Court, after considering the arguments, found that the impugned order primarily assessed the petitioner's tax liability and penalty, while other contentions were considered as grounds for challenging the order. The Court refrained from delving into the merits at this stage, citing the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the G.S.T. Act. The petitioner was advised to appeal to the Appellate Authority within three months from the date of communication of the order.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the G.S.T. Act. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to raise all objections before the appellate authority and instructed to file an appeal within two weeks. The Court emphasized that the appellate authority should decide on the appeal and any stay application promptly and in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →