2023 (4) TMI 589 - HC - GST

Levy of IGST alongwith interest and penalty - petitioner had already paid IGST at the time of release of imported goods - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - There are no fault with the impugned order. The impugned order dated 27.02.2023 only indicates that along with the books of accounts which have been submitted for the purpose of reconsideration of the assessment made, the petitioner has not enclosed any reply as required. Further, the petitioner has also stated that he has not submitted any suitable explanation to the show-cause notice. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit suitable reply and any other document and assist the respondent authorities in order to complete the assessment as required under law - Petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the challenge to various orders including a notice, show-cause notice, assessment order, recovery order, and rejection order, all related to the payment of IGST on imported goods.

Challenge to Notice, Show-Cause Notice, Assessment Order, Recovery Order, and Rejection Order:
The petitioner, a Registered Person engaged in importing goods from Bangladesh and selling them in Tripura, challenged multiple orders issued by the respondents. The petitioner contended that the show-cause notice and subsequent assessment order charging additional IGST, interest, and penalty were illegal as the petitioner had already paid IGST at the time of import. The petitioner also claimed that the Customs authority failed to upload the IGST paid in the GST Portal. Despite applying for rectification, the petitioner's request was rejected. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition, requesting the court to declare the orders illegal and without jurisdiction. The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide a suitable reply to the show-cause notice and directed the petitioner to submit the necessary documents and assist the authorities in completing the assessment. The petitioner's counsel assured the court of submitting the required documents within a week for further consideration by the respondents. The court disposed of the writ petition with this direction, emphasizing the need for cooperation from the petitioner in the assessment process.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Tripura addressed the challenge raised by the petitioner against various orders related to IGST payment on imported goods. The court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the authorities by submitting a suitable reply and necessary documents for the assessment process. The court's decision highlighted the importance of complying with legal procedures and assisting in the resolution of disputes concerning tax matters.