2024 (4) TMI 657 - HC - GST

Validity Of Order Passed - documents submitted by the petitioner were disregarded - manufacture of alcoholic beverages - show cause notice issued - non payment of GST - limitation period - HELD THAT - The operative portion of the impugned order, extract reveals that the assessing officer took into account the evidence placed on record, including the licence issued by the Excise Commissioner, the licence cum manufacturing agreement and the statements of Smt.N.Nalini and Shri.R.V.Ravikumar. Upon appraisal of such evidence, materiality and weight was assigned to such evidence while drawing conclusions. In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in these facts and circumstances. The impugned order is dated 11.12.2023 and this writ petition was filed in January 2024. As of the date of filing, the limitation period had not expired. As on date, the condonation period is on the verge of expiry. Thus, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be permitted to present a statutory appeal. Therefore, W.P.No. is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to present a statutory appeal within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such statutory appeal is presented within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority is directed to receive and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question of limitation. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.10388 of 2024 is closed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the primary issue of the petitioner challenging an order dated 11.12.2023 on the grounds that the documents submitted by them were disregarded in relation to a show cause notice received for alleged non-payment of GST.

Details of the judgment:
1. The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, received a show cause notice dated 29.09.2023 regarding alleged non-payment of GST. The petitioner replied to the notice on 24.10.2023 and 15.11.2023. The impugned order was issued based on these facts.

2. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that relevant documents, such as the licence and manufacturing agreement, were disregarded while issuing the impugned order, despite the petitioner holding a necessary licence for manufacturing alcoholic beverages.

3. The senior standing counsel for the respondents pointed out that statements of the authorized signatory and managing director were considered in confirming the tax demand. Reference was made to Circular No.160/20/2021-GST regarding the tax implications of job work in the manufacture of alcoholic liquors.

4. The impugned order noted the taxpayer's submissions regarding their registration, excise duty payments, and the nature of their contractual relationships. Statements from the authorized signatory and managing director were taken into account, detailing the operations and tax payments related to the manufacture of alcohol.

5. The assessing officer considered the evidence presented, including the licence, manufacturing agreement, and statements, in drawing conclusions. The court declined to interfere with the impugned order, citing the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.

6. The writ petition was filed in January 2024, within the limitation period, allowing the petitioner to present a statutory appeal within ten days from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to receive and dispose of the appeal on merits without considering the question of limitation.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, addressing the issues raised by the petitioner and the responses from both parties involved in the case.