9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 177 - HC - GSTErroneous orders of GST officers - Insufficient Time limit for filing reply to notice issued u/s 73 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The order is erroneous because in the show-cause notice only 7 days was given to reply to the notice and on the 8th day the impugned order came to be passed. Therefore, the question of not paying within 30 days of the issue of the notice will not arise. - These acts/omissions of Respondents officers is adding to the already overburdened dockets of the Court. Valuable judicial time is wasted because such unacceptable orders are being passed by Respondents officers. The officers do not seem to understand or appreciate the hardship that is caused to the general public. In this case, Petitioner could afford (we have assumed) to spend on a lawyer and approach this Court but for every Petitioner, we would hazard a guess, atleast ten would not be able to afford a lawyer and approach the Court and their registrations may get cancelled by the very same officers who have passed such patently illegal orders. Cost of Rs. 10000/- imposed on GST officer.
Issues:
1. Time period for replying to a notice under Section 73 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Validity of the order issued with a short notice period. 3. Consequences of issuing orders without proper application of mind. 4. Imposition of costs on Respondents and directions for payment to PM Cares Fund. 5. Training and orientation for authorities regarding legal provisions and principles of natural justice. Issue 1: The primary grievance raised in the Petition was regarding the time period for replying to a notice under Section 73 of the MGST Act. The Petitioner argued that a minimum of 15 days should be given to reply. The Respondent agreed that the 7-day notice period given was contrary to the MGST Rules, 2017, and stated that a minimum of 15 days should have been provided. The Court, in agreement with the Petitioner, emphasized that Section 73(8) of the MGST Act allows a person chargeable with tax a period of 30 days from the issuance of the show-cause notice to make payment or file a reply. The Court held that this statutory period cannot be arbitrarily reduced to 7 days by the assessing officer. Issue 2: The order issued with a short notice period was deemed erroneous as only 7 days were given to reply to the notice, leading to the passing of the impugned order on the 8th day. The Respondent, acknowledging the error, was instructed to withdraw the impugned order dated 10th March 2022. The Court emphasized the importance of applying the basic provisions of the Act and Rules to prevent unnecessary burden on the judicial system and highlighted the hardships faced by the general public due to such illegal orders. Issue 3: The Court expressed concern over the consequences of issuing orders without proper application of mind, emphasizing the need for officers to understand the impact of their actions on the public. To address this issue, the Court ordered the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a donation to the PM Cares Fund within two weeks. Additionally, the Court directed the CBIC and the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra, to conduct training sessions to educate officers on the law, rules, and principles of natural justice to prevent meritorious cases from being defeated on technicalities. Issue 4: The Court imposed costs on the Respondents and directed them to make a donation to the PM Cares Fund as a form of penalty for the erroneous order issued. The Court emphasized the need for authorities to be sensitive to the impact of their orders on the public and stressed the importance of accountability and efficiency among officers to facilitate the Government's vision of ease of doing business in India. Issue 5: In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition, highlighting the need for authorities to be mindful of the consequences of their actions on the public and urging them to conduct training sessions to enhance their understanding of legal provisions and principles of natural justice. The Court's observations were made in the broader context of improving the efficiency and accountability of officers to promote ease of doing business in India.
|
