2021 (6) TMI 176 - HC - GST

Recall of order - service of notice - Interest due arising from late filing of return has not been paid - HELD THAT - It appears that the system and the operators are solely responsible for the harassment being meted out to the poor assesses. As the enquiry referrred to by Mr. Trivedi is not on record, this Court is unable to decipher whether, the harassment to the taxpayer is a personal one or the system/service provider is to be blamed. Thus, it is deemed fit that the respondent no.3 is directed to file its response with regard to the submissions made by the applicant so that this Court may fix the liability on the relevant person. This Court is of the view that a direction for payment of cost as against the applicant and the observations shall remain stayed till the next date.

Issues:
1. Recall of order dated 24.11.2020 directing payment of cost and personal observations against the applicant.
2. Allegations of technical error in the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner.
3. Responsibility for the harassment faced by taxpayers - system/service provider or personal actions.

Issue 1: Recall of order dated 24.11.2020
The petitioner filed an application seeking the recall of the order dated 24.11.2020, which directed the payment of a cost of ?10,000 from the applicant's salary and contained personal observations against the applicant. The petitioner requested the deletion or modification of these directions. The Court noted that the show-cause notice quoted in the order had been issued by the applicant himself. The petitioner argued that the reasons for the notice were related to interest due from late filing of returns. However, it was acknowledged that the notice served upon the petitioner did not contain these reasons. The Court directed the respondent to file a response regarding the submissions made by the applicant to determine liability for the harassment faced by the petitioner before fixing any costs.

Issue 2: Allegations of technical error in the show-cause notice
The petitioner's counsel argued that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner contained remarks uploaded by the applicant, but these remarks were not included in the notice served. The counsel contended that a technical error by the service agency 'Wipro' was responsible for this discrepancy. The applicant clarified that the application was filed in a personal capacity and not on behalf of any department. The Court observed that the system and operators might be responsible for the harassment faced by taxpayers and directed the respondent to provide a response to determine liability for the issues raised.

Issue 3: Responsibility for taxpayer harassment
The Court highlighted the need to ascertain whether the harassment faced by the petitioner was due to personal actions or system/service provider errors. The Court emphasized the importance of determining the liable party before fixing any costs. It was decided that the direction for payment of costs against the applicant and the observations made would be stayed until further proceedings. The Court directed the applicant to serve a copy of the application and the order on the Standing Counsel for a response to be filed by the next hearing date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the recall of the order, technical errors in the show-cause notice, and the responsibility for taxpayer harassment, providing a comprehensive overview of the Court's decision-making process and considerations.

← Previous Next →