2024 (3) TMI 676 - HC - GST

Lack of mention regarding tax demand in the show cause notice - Apparent discrepancy in treatment of refund claim and tax demand. - Scope for granting interim order on the writ petition - HELD THAT - When the order was tested before the Appellate Authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST CX, Appeal-II Committee, Kolkata, it is found that the order only deals with the correctness of the rejection of the refund claim and there is no mention about anything with regard to the demand of tax to the tune of Rs.29,63,488/-. That apart, till date no demand notice was issued. The appeal along with the connected application stand disposed of granting liberty to the appellant to file a fresh stay application before the learned Single Bench as and when demand notice is issued by the respondent Department and if such an application is filed the learned Single Bench is requested to consider the same on merit.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the scope for granting interim order on a writ petition, demand notice for tax, rejection of refund claim, and the authority's decision on the correctness of the rejection.

Scope for granting interim order on a writ petition:
The intra-Court appeal was against an order that observed no scope for granting any interim order on the writ petition as no demand notice had been issued on the appellant by the authority concerned. The Court found no error in the said order considering the absence of a demand notice.

Demand notice for tax:
The Original Authority issued a show cause notice on an application for refund without mentioning anything about the demand of tax. However, in the final order, a demand of Rs.29,63,488/- was made in accordance with Section 74 of the GST Act along with appropriate interest u/s 50 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the entire refund claim without addressing the demand of tax. The Appellate Authority also did not mention anything about the tax demand, and no demand notice was issued till date.

Rejection of refund claim:
The Assistant Commissioner rejected the entire refund claim, and the Appellate Authority only dealt with the correctness of this rejection without addressing the demand of tax. The absence of any mention or decision on the tax demand raised concerns regarding the handling of the case.

Authority's decision on the correctness of the rejection:
The appeal was disposed of, granting the appellant liberty to file a fresh stay application when a demand notice is issued by the respondent Department. The appellant was given an extended time to file an affidavit-in-opposition, and the Court requested the learned Single Bench to consider any fresh stay application on merit.