9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 475 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - time limitation for filing appeal - non-filing of returns for a period of six months - HELD THAT - Although this Court has taken different view in DDA TYRES AND SERVICES VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF GST, DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICE, DHARMAPURI. 2023 (10) TMI 381 - MADRAS HIGH COURT by relegating the party to file an appeal, Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner outside the purview of the GST regime, as the petitioner will continue to carry on business. This view has also been taken by this Court in M/s.Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and another 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . The Court is inclined to dispose this writ petition by quashing the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing all the tax due for the period from April 2022 to July 2023 together with interest - petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order in Form GST REG-19, Failure to file returns for six months, Alternate remedies under Section 30 of Puducherry Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 107 of the GST Act, Court's view on usefulness of keeping petitioner in GST regime.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed on 05.05.2023 in Form GST REG-19, which followed a notice in Form GST REG-17/31 dated 02.02.2023. It was noted that the petitioner had not filed returns for a period of six months, although returns for April and May 2022 were subsequently filed. However, returns for the remaining months from April 2022 to July 2023 were still pending. A partial payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of Rs. 11,45,481.50/- was made by the petitioner on 17.08.2023. The respondent argued that the petitioner had alternative remedies available under Section 30 of the Puducherry Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as well as the option to appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GST Act, even though the appeal filing deadline may have lapsed. The respondent cited a previous decision of the Court in DDA Tyres and Services Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of GST, emphasizing the availability of these alternative avenues for the petitioner. In considering the arguments presented, the Court acknowledged the differing views taken in previous cases but ultimately decided that it would not be beneficial to exclude the petitioner from the GST regime, especially considering the ongoing business activities. The Court referenced a previous case, M/s.Suguna Cutpiece Center Vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, to support its decision. Consequently, the Court decided to quash the impugned order on the condition that the petitioner settles all outstanding taxes from April 2022 to July 2023, along with any accrued interest. The revival of the petitioner's GST registration was contingent upon full payment, with the respondent retaining the right to pursue recovery proceedings for any remaining unpaid taxes. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed, and connected writ miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the Court's decision.
|
