9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 416 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty u/s 122(2)(a) of CGST/APGST Act - notice under Section 73(1) within three months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) of Section 73, not issued, which is a requirement to impose penalty - HELD THAT - Learned Counsel for Revenue submitted that he has no objection for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh assessment. The matter is remitted back with a direction that a fresh assessment of tax and penalty shall be made by an authorized officer within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
Challenge to penalty imposed under CGST and APGST Acts without following proper procedure and exceeding statutory limits. Analysis: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to challenge the penalty imposed by the 3rd respondent through an Assessment order, alleging it to be illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the CGST and APGST Acts, as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The main argument presented was that the penalty was imposed under Section 122(2)(a) of the Acts, which requires following the procedure outlined in Section 73 of the APGST Act. It was contended that the penalty amount of ?27,47,248 exceeded the statutory limits set by Section 122(2)(a), which allows for a penalty of ?10,000 or 10% of the tax due, whichever is higher. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the absence of a show-cause notice preceding the imposition of the penalty, as required by law. Consequently, the petitioner requested the court to set aside the impugned order. The learned standing counsel for the respondents did not contest the petitioner's arguments and agreed to the setting aside of the impugned order. As a result, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Assessment order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent. The court directed that a fresh assessment of tax and penalty be conducted by an authorized officer within four weeks in strict adherence to the applicable laws and rules. The judgment also specified that any pending miscellaneous applications would stand closed, and no costs were awarded in this matter.
|
