9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1376 - HC - GSTExtension of time limitation - Validity of SCN issued u/s 73(1) of the WBGST CGST Act, 2017 - seeking stay of SCN - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the fact that a jurisdictional issue has been raised and a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner, however, considering the fact that fiscal policy of the State is involved, it is not proposed to stay the impugned show cause notice. The respondents shall continue with the impugned proceeding but the final order, if passed shall not be given effect to nor the same shall be uploaded in the portal, without the leave of this Court. Further taking into consideration the fact that by reason of challenge thrown by the petitioner to the show cause notice since no response had been filed by the petitioner, time to file the response by the petitioner is extended by a period of four weeks from date. If the petitioner files its response within the afforded extended period, the same shall be taken into consideration by the proper officer - The proper officer being otherwise obliged to, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in connection with the response filed by the petitioner. List this matter under the heading hearing in the combined monthly list of August 2024.
Issues Involved: Challenge to show cause notice u/s 73(1) of WBGST & CGST Act, 2017; Validity of time limit extension notifications; Jurisdictional issue; Stay of show cause notice; Opportunity to file response; Affidavit-in-opposition filing timeline.
Summary: The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued u/s 73(1) of the WBGST & CGST Act, 2017 for the tax period from April 2019 to March 2020, citing an outer time limit provision in the statute. The respondents extended the time limit through notifications, leading to the issuance of the notice dated 28th March 2024. The petitioner argued that the extension was a colorable exercise of power and sought a stay on the notice. The petitioner also referred to Section 168A of the Act, contending that the show cause notice was an initiation of proceedings under Section 73(9) and that the extension notifications were invalid. The petitioner requested a stay on the notice to prevent the completion of the process and the passing of a final order, which would render the writ petition infructuous. In response, the petitioner requested an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice if the court allowed the proper officer to conclude the proceeding. The respondent's advocate sought leave to file an affidavit-in-opposition and opposed the injunction on the proper officer from proceeding with the notice. After hearing both parties, the court acknowledged the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner but decided not to stay the show cause notice due to the involvement of the state's fiscal policy. The court directed that the respondents could continue with the proceeding but could not pass a final order or upload it without the court's permission. Furthermore, the court extended the time for the petitioner to file a response by four weeks and mandated that the proper officer provide an opportunity for a hearing regarding the response. The court also instructed the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks after the summer break, with a reply due two weeks thereafter, listing the matter for a hearing in August 2024.
|
