2022 (12) TMI 197 - HC - GST

Permission for withdrawal of petition - it is submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed as the amount recovered during pendency of the appeal has been reversed - HELD THAT - In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Issues:
1. Recovery of disputed amount during pendency of appeal.
2. Compliance with statutory provisions under the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Validity of orders passed by the State Tax Officer.
4. Service of Show Cause Notice as a condition precedent.
5. Opportunity of hearing before imposing liability.
6. Validity of GST DRC-07 issued under Rule 142(5) of the Act.
7. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing orders.

Issue 1: Recovery of Disputed Amount During Pendency of Appeal
The petitioner sought a writ to challenge the recovery made by the State Tax Officer during the pendency of the appeal, arguing that it was in conflict with the provisions of Section 107(7) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that once an appeal is filed and the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) is complied with, no recovery can be made unless the appeal is rejected. However, it was informed that the recovered amount had been reversed, leading to the petitioner's decision to withdraw the writ petition.

Issue 2: Compliance with Statutory Provisions
The petitioner also raised concerns regarding the compliance with statutory provisions, specifically Section 107(13) of the Act. It was argued that this section is mandatory, and if an appeal is filed within the stipulated time frame without adjudication taking place, the Appellate Authority is barred from exercising powers under Section 107. However, since the recovered amount was reversed, the petitioner opted to withdraw the writ petition.

Issue 3: Validity of Orders Passed by State Tax Officer
The petitioner challenged the validity of the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Rule 142 of the Act, contending that no proceedings were initiated under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act of 2017. It was argued that without such proceedings, no tax, penalty, or interest could be levied against the petitioner. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order on these grounds.

Issue 4: Service of Show Cause Notice as a Condition Precedent
The petitioner emphasized the necessity of serving a Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as a condition precedent for issuing a Summary of the Show Cause Notice under Rule 142. Failure to serve such notice was deemed to render the proceedings void ab initio, leading to the request for quashing the same.

Issue 5: Opportunity of Hearing Before Imposing Liability
The petitioner contended that providing an effective and reasonable opportunity of hearing is a prerequisite before imposing any liability under the Act. It was argued that the principles of natural justice, including a fair hearing, were violated in the proceedings, rendering the order passed on 18.01.2019 as void ab initio.

Issue 6: Validity of GST DRC-07 Issued Under Rule 142(5)
The petitioner challenged the validity of the GST DRC-07 issued under Rule 142(5) of the Act, claiming that it was ab initio void and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner sought the quashing of the order dated 18.01.2019 passed under Section 73(9) read with Section 50(3) for violating the principles of natural justice.

Issue 7: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The petitioner alleged that the order dated 18.01.2019 passed under Section 73(9) read with Section 50(3) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing. This violation was cited as a reason for seeking the quashing of the said order. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn after the petitioner's grievance was redressed by the reversal of the recovered amount.

← Previous Next →