9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 753 - HC - GSTLevy of GST on import / purchase of goods from SEZ units - Requirement to make payment of IGST or CGST and SGST - import of certain goods under cover of bill of entries from ONGC Petro Additions Limited, which is a Special Economic Zone Unit - HELD THAT - Taking note of the fact that the petitioners during the financial year 2018-19 had imported goods under cover of bill of entries from ONGC Petro Additions Limited which is a Special Economic Zone Unit for which the petitioners had already taken credit of the IGST, which had incidentally not been considered by the proper officer and on the basis of the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the respondents, the matter requires to be remanded back to the proper officer for re-adjudication. The order dated 15th March 2024 passed under Section 73 of the said Act is set aside - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The petitioners challenged an order issued u/s 73 of the WBGST Act 2017, claiming they were not liable to pay CGST/WBGST for goods imported from a Special Economic Zone Unit, as they had already paid IGST. The proper officer issued a show cause notice disregarding this fact. Details of the judgment: The petitioners had imported goods under a bill of entries from a Special Economic Zone Unit during the financial year 2018-19. They had already taken credit of the IGST paid on these goods. The proper officer did not consider this and held the petitioners liable to pay IGST again. The petitioners argued that the order was incorrect as they had already paid the IGST and taken credit for it. The learned advocate for the petitioners highlighted that the proper officer overlooked a press release from the Ministry of Finance, which supported the petitioners' claim of already paying IGST. The advocate argued that the order was unsustainable due to this oversight. On the other hand, the advocate for the respondents suggested that the issue needed further consideration by the proper officer. He proposed that if the matter was sent back to the proper officer, they could review the situation in light of the petitioners' disclosure made in court. After hearing both parties, the court decided that the matter should be remanded back to the proper officer for re-adjudication. The court set aside the order passed u/s 73 of the WBGST Act 2017, emphasizing that it had not delved into the merits of the case. The proper officer was directed to conclude the show cause notice within 6 weeks, providing the petitioners with a personal hearing and passing a reasoned order u/s 75(4) of the Act. The court disposed of the writ petition with these directions and observations, clarifying that no affidavits were called for, and the allegations in the petition were not deemed admitted by the respondents. All parties were instructed to act based on the server copy of the order downloaded from the court's official website.
|
