9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 270 - HC - GSTJurisdiction - power under IGST to issue such notice - contradiction of Section 75(7) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - After notice of this petition, replies on respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 have been filed separately. As per reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4, proper officer of the State under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 has already issued notice on 06.12.2018 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.4 has not summoned the petitioner again with respect to the above fact, the proper officer of the Sale Tax was informed vide letter dated 02.02.2019. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, they are not pursuing anything against the petitioner. As per reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, the Excise and Taxation Officer has already passed the order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-14), and the same is appealable. This writ petition is being disposed of at this stage as the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.4 had also initiated similar proceedings, does not survive as per reply filed by respondent No.4 and order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P-14) is appealable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with law.
Issues involved:
The quashing of order in Form DRC-07 dated 22.07.2019 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar on the grounds of lack of power under IGST and contradiction with Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, 2017. Details of the Judgment: The petitioner sought the quashing of the order in Form DRC-07 dated 22.07.2019 issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Jagadhari, Yamuna Nagar, arguing that the officer had no authority under IGST to issue such a notice. The challenge was based on the contention that the order contradicted Section 75(7) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, as the demand raised exceeded the demand proposed in the notice Form DRC-01. Upon notice of the petition, replies were filed by respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 separately. Respondent No.4 stated that the proper officer of the State had already issued a notice on 06.12.2018. Respondent No.4 did not summon the petitioner again, as the proper officer of the Sale Tax was informed accordingly. Respondents No.1 to 3 mentioned that the Excise and Taxation Officer had passed the order dated 22.07.2019, which was appealable. The learned counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the petitioner was not in touch with him. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of at this stage, as the grievance regarding respondent No.4 initiating similar proceedings did not hold, as per the reply filed by respondent No.4. The order dated 22.07.2019 was deemed appealable. The petitioner was granted the liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with the law.
|
