9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 93 - HC - GSTRefund of tax - Tax / GST paid under protest in order to release the detained vehicle or not - Adjudicating authority requiring to produce the documents related to stock retention and vehicles used in generation of e-way bills for inward and outward supplies - Section 73 (5) of the Odisha Goods and Service Tax Act (OGST Act) - period October 2018 to March 2019, April 2019 to February 2020 and April 2020 to March 2021 - HELD THAT - If the Petitioner wanted to contest the demand raised, he ought to have adopted the procedure already outlined under Rule 142 (1A) of the OGST Rules. For reasons best known to him, he did not opt for that procedure. Also, till date, he has actually not registered any protest with the Department which ought to have been made contemporaneous with the making of the payment. Three months after making such payment, he has sent a vague letter contending that the liability is not acceptable which is neither here nor there since the Petitioner had already made the full payment of the tax demanded. The Petitioner has by his own conduct disabled himself from availing the remedy available to him in law, if indeed the payment was made under protest. Since, there is no material to support the contention of the Petitioner that he made payment of the demanded tax under protest, the Court is not persuaded to accept such submission at this stage. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to notice for document production and tax liability under OGST Act and CGST Act, refund of tax, appeal against orders, payment under protest, failure to follow procedure for partial payment and submissions, inability to file appeal, contention of payment under protest, disabled from availing remedy, dismissal of writ petition. Analysis: 1. The primary challenge in the present petition is directed towards a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of CT and GST to the Petitioner, demanding the production of documents related to stock retention and vehicles used in generating e-way bills for inward and outward supplies. Additionally, the notice includes an intimation of tax liability under Section 73 (5) of the Odisha Goods and Service Tax Act (OGST Act) and the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST Act) for specific periods. 2. The Petitioner further seeks a refund of tax and requests permission to appeal against the orders mentioned in the petition. 3. The background reveals that the Petitioner, a registered dealer and distributor of a specific product, faced detention of vehicles by authorities demanding document production. While the Petitioner claims to have made the tax payment under protest to release the detained vehicles, no concrete evidence of such protest was presented during the proceedings. 4. Despite a subsequent letter disowning the payment of tax and interest, the Court notes that the Petitioner failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 142 (1A) and (2A) of the OGST Rules, which allows for partial payment and submission of objections against proposed liabilities in a specified format. 5. The Petitioner's decision to make full payment without protest, followed by a delayed disavowal of liability, raises concerns about the timeliness and appropriateness of the actions taken. 6. The Court highlights that the Petitioner received a letter from the Department indicating the conclusion of proceedings after the payment of tax, interest, and penalty, suggesting a lack of grounds for further contestation. 7. The Petitioner's failure to register a timely protest or follow the prescribed procedure for challenging demands significantly hampers the ability to seek redress through legal avenues. 8. Given the absence of concrete evidence supporting the claim of payment under protest and the Petitioner's failure to adhere to established procedures, the Court finds no merit in the Petitioner's contentions. 9. Consequently, the Court concludes that none of the reliefs sought by the Petitioner can be granted, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. In summary, the judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal procedures, timely actions, and providing substantial evidence to support claims in matters concerning tax liabilities and appeals under the relevant GST Acts.
|
