9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 408 - HC - GSTValidity of SCN issued alleging non filing of returns - Petitioner had informed the concerned officers that the returns were already filed - issue on the operation of the electronic portal - HELD THAT - There are inaction on the part of the State officers to whom several representations were addressed, who have not even bothered to respond to such repeated representations. Eventually, the Petitioner was also required to approach the Hon ble Cabinet Ministers of the Central Government, namely the Finance Minister and the Minister for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises - Certainly, such an approach on the part of the State Officers, who are supposed to be dealing with the assessees is not expected and when it is informed to us that the policy of the Government is of an ease of during business. If this be so, the basic requirement in regard to the grievances being made by the assessees through their representations need to be addressed with utmost urgency and more particularly in a case as the present, wherein, more than 20 representations being made by the Petitioner were not addressed. This itself is quite alarming. The Commissioner of State Tax is required to explain as to why such an approach to generate unwarranted litigation, on the part of the Officers ought not to be deprecated and taken to the logical conclusion. Let the affidavit also address on the merits of the Petitioner s contention on the return having been filed, as also on the Petitioner s contention of there being no justification in issuing the show cause notice. Such reply affidavit be placed on record within a period of 2 weeks from today. Copy of the same be served to the Petitioner well in advance. Stand over to 10th October 2023, High on Board.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are non-response to representations by state officers, issuance of show cause notice despite filing GST returns, inaction on part of officers, accountability of officers, and correctness of acknowledgments of filed returns. Non-response to representations by state officers: The court observed that more than 20 representations made by the Petitioner to state officers regarding filed GST returns were not responded to. Despite informing the officers about the filing and issues with the electronic portal, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner for non-filing of returns. The court criticized the inaction of the officers and emphasized the need for addressing taxpayer grievances promptly. Issuance of show cause notice despite filing GST returns: The Petitioner had informed the concerned officers about the filed returns and even submitted acknowledgments as evidence. However, a show cause notice was issued alleging non-filing. The court expressed concern over the officers' approach and highlighted that no assessee should have to litigate against the government for issues that can be resolved at the departmental level. Inaction on part of officers: The court noted the lack of response from state officers to the Petitioner's representations, leading the Petitioner to approach Central Government Ministers. The court emphasized the importance of officers justifying their actions and addressing taxpayer concerns promptly to avoid unwarranted litigation. Accountability of officers: The court highlighted the accountability of officers not only to the assessee but also to the court. It questioned the officers' silence in not responding to the Petitioner's representations and directed the Commissioner of State Tax to file a clear affidavit addressing the issues raised by the Petitioner and justifying the actions taken. Correctness of acknowledgments of filed returns: The court noted a stand taken in the reply affidavit questioning the correctness of acknowledgments of returns filed by the Petitioner. It directed the Commissioner of State Tax to file a clear affidavit after verifying the portal and system available to the Petitioner. The court required the affidavit to address the merits of the Petitioner's contentions and be filed within two weeks. Separate Judgement by Judges: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
