2020 (9) TMI 1059 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the State states that there were prior proceedings which led to the issuance of impugned demand notice dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure-P/2) - If that be so, we are not inclined to examine the statement made by the petitioner, factual in nature. The petitioner has equally efficacious remedy in law under the CGST Act. Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Quashing of Demand Order dated 29.06.2020
2. Production of assessment order and its quashing
3. Quashing of notice dated 09.11.2019 for non-compliance with Section 74 of the CGST Act
4. Stay on Demand Order till proceedings
5. Direction against coercive action
6. Initiation of proceedings under Section 74 without proper notice
7. Validity of general show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act
8. Specific mention of Section 74 in the notice
9. Specification of amount, interest, and penalty in the notice under Section 74
10. Suppression of turnover offence proceedings before annual turnover declaration
11. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice in raising demand

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought the quashing of the Demand Order dated 29.06.2020 and subsequent orders. The court directed the authorities to provide a copy of the order leading to the demand within a day to enable the petitioner to pursue legal remedies. The matter was disposed of with the condition that the adjudicatory authority should decide on the matter promptly, preferably within three months, leaving all issues on merits open.

2. The petitioner requested the production of the assessment order relevant to the case and its quashing. The court instructed the authorities to supply a copy of the order promptly to facilitate the petitioner's appeal or revision under the CGST Act. The adjudicatory authority was directed to decide on the matter expeditiously, with both parties agreeing to cooperate and avoid unnecessary delays.

3. The petitioner sought the quashing of a notice dated 09.11.2019, alleging non-compliance with Section 74 of the CGST Act. The court did not delve into the factual nature of the petitioner's claims but emphasized the availability of legal remedies under the CGST Act. The authorities were directed to provide a copy of the order leading to the demand, and the petitioner was advised to pursue alternate measures as per the law.

4. The petitioner requested a stay on the Demand Order until the proceedings were concluded. The court did not grant an immediate stay but directed the authorities to supply the necessary documents promptly for the petitioner to take legal recourse. The adjudicatory authority was instructed to decide on the matter expeditiously within a specified timeframe.

5. The petitioner sought a direction against any coercive action by the respondents during the proceedings. The court did not provide an immediate directive but emphasized cooperation between the parties and prompt resolution of the matter by the adjudicatory authority. All issues on merits were left open for further consideration.

6. The petitioner argued that proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot be initiated without a proper notice. The court did not address this argument directly but emphasized the petitioner's right to pursue legal remedies under the CGST Act and directed the authorities to provide the necessary documents promptly.

7. The petitioner contended that a general show cause notice cannot be deemed as issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act. The court did not provide a specific ruling on this contention but focused on ensuring the petitioner's access to the relevant documents for pursuing legal remedies.

8. The petitioner emphasized the necessity of mentioning Section 74 in any notice issued under the CGST Act. While the court did not provide a direct ruling on this point, it directed the authorities to supply the required documents promptly for the petitioner's legal recourse.

9. The petitioner argued that any notice under Section 74 must specify the amount, interest, and penalty proposed. The court did not address this argument explicitly but directed the authorities to provide the necessary documents promptly for the petitioner's legal actions.

10. The petitioner claimed that proceedings for the offence of turnover suppression cannot proceed before the annual turnover declaration. The court did not delve into this claim but focused on providing the petitioner with the required documents for pursuing legal remedies promptly.

11. The petitioner alleged that the demand for tax, interest, and penalty was raised in violation of principles of natural justice. The court did not provide an immediate ruling on this allegation but directed the authorities to supply the necessary documents promptly for the petitioner to seek legal recourse.

← Previous Next →