2022 (1) TMI 546 - HC - GST

Seeking withdrawal of petition - Validity of show cause notice and proceedings commenced under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - invocation of extended period of limitation - Jurisdiction - HELD THAT - The officer concerned instead of invoking the provision of Section 73 has done it under Section 74. If at all the department had indicated that the petitioner is not being entitled for the exemption either on the branded or the unbranded products, they could have issued notice of demand within specified period of limitation under Section 73 however, by not so doing, it has issued the show cause notice under Section 74 which is impermissible, hence the present petition. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Dave seeks withdrawal of this petition with a request that the authority concerned may consider all his contentions which shall be raised in reply to the said show cause notice which shall also include the issue of jurisdiction. The present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice and proceedings under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the ground of jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and selling wheat flour, challenges a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, invoking the extended period of limitation. The petitioner, registered under the GST Act since July 2017, discloses sales under the brand Parivar Atta and unregistered brands, filing returns without suppression. Following a visit to their premises, the petitioner cooperated fully during a search operation, claiming exemption under notification no. 28/2017 for zero-rated supplies. A demand for duty, interest, and penalty is contested for a specific period, challenging the show cause notice under Sections 74 and 20 of the IGST Act.

The petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the show cause notice, arguing no suppression or tax evasion occurred, and no tax was underpaid or refund wrongly claimed. The petitioner asserts that if the department believed they were ineligible for exemption, a notice under Section 73 should have been issued within the limitation period, not under Section 74. The petitioner cites a judgment from the High Court of Jharkhand to support their case.

The petitioner's advocate seeks withdrawal of the petition, requesting the authority to consider all contentions raised in response to the show cause notice, including the jurisdictional issue. The court grants the withdrawal, disposing of the petition accordingly.

This judgment addresses the challenge to a show cause notice under the CGST Act, focusing on jurisdictional grounds and the invocation of the extended limitation period. The petitioner's compliance with filing returns and cooperation during a search operation forms a significant part of the case, alongside the contested demand for duty, interest, and penalty. The court's decision to permit withdrawal of the petition for the petitioner to address contentions in response to the notice concludes the matter without a detailed adjudication on the merits of the jurisdictional dispute.