9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 255 - HC - GSTValidity of assessment order - demand confirmed for the assessment year 2017-2018 contrary to the limitation prescribed under Section 73 (10) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The challenge to the impugned assessment order does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner can only file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act before the appellate Authority. In case, it is the case of the petitioner that the assessment that has been confirmed for the assessment year 2017-2018 thus fell under the VAT regime, unless the assessment order was completed as is contemplated under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006, the demand cannot be said to be time barred, in which case appropriate demand notice under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 can be issued. These are aspects, which will have to be considered by the appellate Commissioner on merits and in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
Challenge to assessment order under CGST Act, 2017 for the years 2017-2018 to 2019-2020. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the respondent primarily on the grounds of limitation u/s 73(10) for 2017-2018 and imposition of 100% penalty u/s 74 r/w 122(2)(b) for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The respondent argued that the demand confirmed for 2017-2018 pertained to the period under TNVAT Act, 2006 and since the petitioner failed to produce records to substantiate payment under the VAT regime, the demand was confirmed. The respondent contended that there was suppression of fact by the petitioner. The respondent further argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy through a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, citing disputed questions of fact that needed consideration. The court considered both sides' arguments and held that the challenge to the assessment order did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court advised the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days. The court dismissed the Writ Petition but allowed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within the specified period. The court also condoned the delay in filing the appeal and required the petitioner to pre-deposit the amount under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the appeal to be entertained by the Appellate Commissioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed with liberty to file a statutory appeal, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
