9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 185 - HC - GSTValidity of fresh proceedings under Section 74 of GST Act - It is the case of petitioner that inasmuch as the petitioner has already been proceeded against, under Section 122 of the GST Act, a fresh proceedings under Section 74 cannot be pursued against him - HELD THAT - While proceedings under Section 122 are for the purposes of imposition of penalty on an assessee, who has contravened the provisions of the Act, the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act are with a view to recover unpaid tax together with interest thereon, in cases where the non-payment of tax is on account of a suppression or willful misstatement occasioned by the assessee. Also, there are no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only the Central government authorities that can initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the Act. There is no statutory basis for the said submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P14 order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority in the meanwhile - petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of initiating fresh proceedings under Section 74 of the GST Act after penalty imposed under Section 122. 2. Authority to initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the GST Act. 3. Applicability of Central government authorities for initiating proceedings under Section 74. 4. Dismissal of writ petition challenging Ext.P14 order. Analysis: 1. The petitioner contested Ext.P14 order under Section 74 of the GST Act, arguing that previous penalty proceedings under Section 122 had concluded with Ext.P5 order penalizing him for statutory violations. The petitioner contended that fresh proceedings under Section 74 were impermissible due to the earlier penalty. The court noted the distinction between penalties under Sections 122 and proceedings under Section 74, emphasizing that the latter aims to recover unpaid taxes due to suppression or willful misstatement by the assessee. The court dismissed the petitioner's claim, stating that the two types of proceedings serve different purposes, and upheld the jurisdiction of the authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 74 post a penalty under Section 122. 2. The court addressed the argument raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the authority entitled to commence proceedings under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel contended that only Central government authorities could initiate such proceedings. The court rejected this submission, stating that there was no statutory basis for this claim. The judgment clarified that the petitioner's assertion lacked legal support, affirming the validity of the respondents' actions in initiating proceedings under Section 74. 3. The court further dismissed the contention that only Central government authorities were empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the GST Act, emphasizing the absence of legal backing for such a claim. The judgment highlighted that the law does not restrict the initiation of Section 74 proceedings to Central government authorities, thereby rejecting the petitioner's argument on this issue. 4. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Ext.P14 order, advising the petitioner to seek recourse through the Appellate Authority via an appeal. The judgment concluded by directing a temporary halt on recovery actions against the petitioner for the amount confirmed in Ext.P14 order, granting a three-week window for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.
|
