9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 285 - HC - GSTChallenge to order passed u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - initiation of a proceeding by the Central Goods and Services Tax authorities by invoking the extended period as provided for under Section 74 (1) read with subsection (10) - HELD THAT -A justification has been provided as regards invocation of the extended period. As to whether or not the proper officer had appropriately considered the petitioners response on the issue of invocation of the extended period, in my view cannot form subject matter of enquiry in a writ petition and cannot be questioned by the petitioners by invoking extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is true, that the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS NARESH KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS 2022 (8) TMI 993 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and M/S. CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2023 (12) TMI 736 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT has clearly held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of factual finding and there should be clear allegations of wilful misstatement or suppression of fact or fraud or collusion committed by the assessee. It is noticed that in the show cause notice the authorities have clearly spelt out in no uncertain terms the basis for invocation of the extended period, which includes suppression of fraudulent availment of input tax credit by way of willful misstatement - the correctness of the aforesaid findings and the sufficiency/proof of such allegations cannot be called in question by the petitioners by invoking the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
Challenge to order u/s 74 of CGST Act, 2017/West Bengal GST Act, 2017 for alleged violation for FY 2017-18 to 2021-22 based on invocation of extended period. Details of the judgment: 1. The writ petition challenges the order dated 31st January, 2024 passed u/s 74 of the GST Acts, questioning the initiation of proceedings by invoking the extended period through a show cause notice dated 2nd August, 2023 for alleged violations. Petitioners argue that the show cause notice was issued beyond the ordinary limitation period, and despite their response questioning jurisdiction, the officer confirmed a liability of Rs. 3,09,64,252/- as GST due. They rely on a precedent to support their contention that the extended period was wrongly invoked and seek to quash the notice and order. 2. Respondents argue that the order is appealable u/s 107 of the Act, and the show cause notice clearly outlined reasons for invoking the extended period. They contend that the petitioners participated in the proceedings, and the final order was passed after due consideration of their responses. They distinguish a previous judgment and refer to a recent unreported case to support their position that the extended period was appropriately invoked based on the facts presented in the show cause notice. 3. The Court notes that the extended period was invoked in the show cause notice issued on 2nd August, 2023, for the FY 2017-2018, despite the ordinary limitation period being three years from the due date of filing returns. The reasons for invoking the extended period were provided in the notice, with the foundation identified clearly. The petitioners raised jurisdictional points in response to the notice. 4. The Court, after considering the order passed on 31st January, 2024, finds that the justification for invoking the extended period was provided. It holds that the appropriateness of the officer's consideration of the petitioners' response on this issue cannot be questioned through a writ petition. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasizes that the extended period can be invoked based on clear allegations of wilful misstatement or suppression of fact, which were present in this case as per the show cause notice and order. 5. The Court dismisses the writ petition, stating that the correctness of the findings and sufficiency of proof regarding the allegations made cannot be questioned through extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The dismissal does not prevent the petitioners from availing statutory remedies if desired. An urgent copy of the order will be provided to the parties upon request.
|
