9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 274 - HC - GSTValidity of SCN issued - whether show cause notice ought to have been issued in FORM GST DRC-01 electronically, as per Rules 100(2) and 142(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017? - HELD THAT - It is to be noted that the petitioner is in default in filing GSTR-3 return for the month of February and March 2018, though for the corresponding period, the petitioner appears to have been filed GSTR-1 2 indicating the outward supply and purchases. The petitioner was issued with a notice, but the petitioner failed to respond. Thus, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner has squandered the alternative appellate remedy by letting the limitation to expire. Now this Writ Petition has been filed to get over the limitation and pre-deposit. This Writ Petition is disposed off with liberty by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on making mandatory pre-deposit. The Appellate Commissioner shall entertain the appeal on merits without reference to the limitation and dispose the same in accordance with law.
Issues: Challenge to impugned order dated 19.02.2021 for assessment year 2017-18, failure to issue show cause notice electronically as per CGST Rules, petitioner's default in filing GSTR-3 return, squandering of alternative appellate remedy, disposal of Writ Petition with liberty to file statutory appeal.
In this case, the petitioner challenged an order dated 19.02.2021 for the assessment year 2017-18, related to a Timber business inspection by the Enforcement Department on 10.09.2020 and 11.09.2020. The petitioner failed to appear for a personal hearing, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the order was contrary to rules as the show cause notice should have been issued electronically as per CGST Rules. The respondent argued that despite opportunities, the petitioner did not avail the personal hearing, leading to dismissal on the ground of latches due to the order date. The court considered both sides' arguments. The court noted the petitioner's default in filing GSTR-3 return for February and March 2018, despite filing GSTR-1&2 for the same period, indicating outward supply and purchases. A notice was issued, but the petitioner did not respond, resulting in the impugned order. The petitioner missed the alternative appellate remedy deadline, prompting the filing of a Writ Petition to overcome the limitation and pre-deposit requirement. As the petitioner was considered an aggrieved party, the court disposed of the Writ Petition with liberty for the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within thirty days from receiving the order copy, subject to making a mandatory pre-deposit. The Appellate Commissioner was directed to entertain the appeal on merits without limitation constraints and dispose of it in accordance with the law. The Writ Petition was thus concluded with the specified terms, no costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
|
