9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 70 - HC - GSTValidity of SCN - SCN seeks to fasten a liability for the period when the petitioner was not active - HELD THAT - In view of the statement made by Mr. Singla (on instruction of Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal, SIO, DGGI, DZU, who is present in Court) that multiple notices have been issued and the highest demand is covered under notice issued to Belz Tech Private Limited, which is registered in Thane, paragraph 7.1 of the Circular dated 09.02.2018 amended by the Circular dated 12.03.2022, as set out above, would clearly be applicable. The petitioner s contention that the Additional / Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the impugned SCN is, thus, unmerited. Insofar as other contentions are concerned, it is not considered apposite to examine the same in this petition since the matter is at the show cause notice stage, and the petitioner is not precluded from raising such contentions in response to the impugned SCN. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The petition impugned a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 15.09.2023, raising objections related to jurisdiction, liability, and business activities during a specific period. Jurisdiction Issue: The petitioner argued that the SCN was required to be adjudicated by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane, not the Additional Director of Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit. The petitioner contended that the officer in Thane was the proper authority for adjudication. Liability Issue: The petitioner claimed that the SCN inaccurately attributed liability for a period when the petitioner was inactive due to the detention of the directors. Additionally, the petitioner disputed the basis of the SCN, stating that the assumption of involvement in online gaming services was incorrect as the petitioner lacked the means to provide such services. Business Location Issue: The petitioner highlighted discrepancies in the SCN concerning the business location. Although the SCN referenced the petitioner's principal place of business in Hyderabad, Telangana, the petitioner argued that it should be adjudicated by an officer in Thane, where the petitioner also had a separate registration. Legal Interpretation Issue: Reference was made to Circulars dated 09.02.2018 and 12.03.2022, with the petitioner contending that they did not apply to their situation. However, the respondent argued that the Circulars empowered officers with jurisdiction based on the highest demand raised in connected matters. Judgment Summary: The Court found that the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane, had jurisdiction to adjudicate the SCN, as the highest demand was raised in a notice issued to another entity registered in Thane. The petitioner's objections were deemed unmerited, and the Court emphasized that the concerned officer must consider all contentions and defenses before passing a speaking order. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with all pending applications also being resolved.
|
